New Management Course

[BAJR Host]

http://www.bajr.org/employment/uktrainin...sp?id=3572

A new course that will teach real management in archaeology

perhaps its about time that we learned it (those of us that are archaeologists first and managers second)

the time is coming.... so we have to consider becoming a bit more business-like and that does not mean watching Alan Sugar on the Apprentice, and passing that off as a CPD in management!

So give it some thought... and NO I am not on commission..
more concerned about all our futures!



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Will the course also cover people managing skills? as in how to treat people as we would like to be treated ourselves.

[SClarkP]

I applaud the university for having such a course, but as I read it, it looks like it's only one day? To cover:

1. Your business starting point
2. Competitor intelligence
3. Your internal abilities and potential
4. Marketing and promotion
5. Financial issues
6. Resourcing

Whew!! they must be good

Having been involved with many companies where the finance, marketing, management is all done by archaeologists (and i thought we got into archaeology to avoid math, now you're having an archaeologist doing taxes, payroll, profit and loss, etc! scary) I strongly believe in the need for more educated and business minded folks in those positions.

However, a one day course to teach what is essentially an MBA concerns me. Is this the importance that the powers that be in archaeology place on business management? Is one day sufficient? (that last was rhetorical btw)

As with field tech "unions" and wage issues in the US, I hear a lot of talk but see little action. Having been out of archaeology for several years and within marketing for a very successful company, I see the benefits that could be brought to CRM from a business focus. Does anyone think that a CRM company would hire for this though? In my experience, the answer has been no.

Is there more out there than one day courses? I'm not beating up on Leicester and I'm happy they're even offering such a course. It just seems like more evidence that is convincing me that CRM truly doesn't want to change and likely will not change despite the efforts of some folks.

Sara

[oldgirl]

Based on the time I did a similar course with IFA (which was 2 days if I remember rightly) and also based on what I've seen in archaeology generally, it's a very useful course. If nothing else it identifies the starting points for basic business management. I would think that the idea is to introduce archaeologists to some of the ideas which people who work in other businesses assume everyone knows about, but that archaeologists don't get to think/hear about.

And (luckily) you don't need an MBA to set up a successful small business, but you need to know where your skill gaps are. I've come across a lot of people who never even think about the basic stuff of 'is there a market for this and can I do it', let alone work out how to convince a bank to lend them money! (and don't get me started on PAYE and VAT........)

[SClarkP]

I'm glad to hear it was useful for and I didn't mean to sound negative in the first post. Any introduction to basic business management is a good idea. (I mean, especially when you're, well, going to run a business!)

It just sounded to me like a token effort that underscores the lack of importance placed on sound management in the industry. CRM is still a too often a boot strap operation (is that too american an saying?) and I feel like a lot of the basic faults of the industry, including poor tech wages, poor tech education, companies allowed to do shoddy fieldwork and still stay in business, is due this work ethic.

My ultimate concern is the archaeological record and what damage vs good CRM is doing to it. CRM could be doing so much more on the positive side but there don't seem to be enough market forces in place to make companies shape up and do better. just my 2 cents (also too american?).

Sara

[oldgirl]

The problem (or good thing?) is that people see themselves as archaeologists 1st and business people 2nd. Which means that the archaeology often suffers less than the archaeologists do!

On the other hand, I've seen some companies employ non-archaeologists in a business development role and sorely regret the decision. Many people from outside 'the business' don't understand the market place. I've seen too many people with (as that's what has been quoted) MBAs who think that they have all the answers because they've done a course, but they don't understand their product at all.

I take your point that it's only a starting place, but better this than nothing! Most of the units here that have been around for a while do have people with a fair idea of how to run a business in charge now, but it's the people who want to move into management who need this.

In my opinion, in most cases it's better to be a good archaeologist with a little bit of knowledge on how to develop and run a business than a top business person with no idea about the archaeology. Most units just can't afford you, for a start!

[BAJR Host]

Good points all...

the course (I had a long talk with the provider - who is meeting me in August) is a basis for further study. I think it should be clearer that its not going to turn you into a fully fledged manager.. but give a grounding in what you will need to learn to become one. I know too many archaeologists who are good at archaeology, but when it comes to business.. well... you know...

Take one example...

4. Marketing and promotion

How to market yourself within a competitive environment. Too often glossy brochures hide a lack of substance, but conversely, a badly laid out sheet of A4 can make you look like an amateur before people even start to read... Who and where to market to? A poor web presence (or none at all) can lose client confidence... if the website looks like a 1990s nightmare.. in bright yellow.. then people might not be so keen... when to spend money on advertising and when not to? One good example... Do you put an advert for your company in a construction magazine or an archaeologists magazine... think about it... ??

Providing a service and acting professional is part of the process of being taken as professional.. shrugging off the image of the beardy real ale quaffer, whose technological advance stopped with the propelling pencil... but not being so caught up in style over substance at the same time... all lessons to be learned.

This course will hopefully provide a basic start to people... I look forward to hearing reports about what people think of it.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[oldgirl]

'One good example... Do you put an advert for your company in a construction magazine or an archaeologists magazine... think about it... ??'

Depends on the magazines. I've had the hard sell from a lot of 'construction' magazines which appear to have a circulation of about 5. Let alone offers to do an 'advertorial'. The only time we ever got any work from one, the client was a nightmare and then went bust before they paid us!

Personally, I find most advertising pretty scatter gun in archaeology. Even if you make a hit with the right person/organisation, they may not need your services right then.

[BAJR Host]

quote:'ve had the hard sell from a lot of 'construction' magazines which appear to have a circulation of about 5

I think I know who you mean! [:0]

I also had one recently from History Today... wanting us to advertise our tool store...

So.. says I... how many historians want a trowel... er... er..

Now maybe it might work, as some archaeologists might read this publication .. but moeney better spent perhaps in an archaeological publication..

personally.. save yer cash and stick with BAJR.. it is free as well

scattergun is probably right... as in the end.. most people who require the services of archaeologists either type it into google... or ask the curator or the consultant... or look in the yellow pages..


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[SClarkP]

It's encouraging that there are people out there that do have confidence in their companies and their management. However:


"The problem (or good thing?) is that people see themselves as archaeologists 1st and business people 2nd. Which means that the archaeology often suffers less than the archaeologists do!"


To take the point above that the archaeology doesn't suffer, I have to disagree. One case in point is the quality of fieldwork done at the most basic tech level. It has long been lamented that field techs are not adequately trained (sometimes even after years in the field) due to a variety of factors. If you've been in CRM for even a short period of time, I'm sure you can think of several instances where sites/features were improperly dug; too quickly dug; artifacts left in the back dirt; etc.

I'm not here to call out bad field techs, but to show this as an example of how non-business oriented CRM management can lead to poor fieldwork and thus damage to the record. In many idustries, entry level jobs exist with the implication that those employees will be trained to a point where they will advance to the next level, whereupon those (let's call them field directors) will in turn train and be trained for the next level (let's call them PIs), and so on. In all of the CRM companies I've worked with or had friends work with, I've never heard of field techs being required to really know the laws. To really understand the WHY of the work. I've also known many field directors put into their positions because of a degree and not experience (and then cringe when I hear about the quality of the sites they are botching up).

How would CRM be different if management/staffing placed an emphasis on professional development, on efficiency of work, on getting the most reports accepted without objection due to poor fieldwork? How could they better position themselves in the industry by promoting this type of management focus?

Some examples: What if we required all field directors to drill techs on digging techniques AND relevant CRM laws and regulations. What if we expected all field directors to KNOW the laws, the proposal of the project, the purpose of the fieldwork. If PIs were forced to include the field directors' input while writing up proposals, estimating field time, etc. What if incentives were put in place to encourage field techs to complete projects on time (with requirements on the field director that all field notes and work must be done to a certain standard and all incentives based on the acceptance of the work by the local regulatory body). I could go on.

Anyway, the point is that with CRM management being archaeologists first and business savvy second, I think fieldwork does suffer.

Sara