Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
I agree with Dr. Pete that this is 'far from a monopoly situtaion', and also that in the free market competition is the regulator.
However this thread was entitled FUTURE monopoly, and, as I dont think there is any harm in being self reflexsive, I think that gone to pot has hit the nail on the head with the potential dichotomy that could emerge due to much commercial archaeology becoming carried out by a single private organisation. Particularly if the job of defining research priorities and methods starts to become the job of an unelected few as oppposed to a representatives of a democratic majority.
Without wanting to get accused of scaremongering, i just think its worth pausing and thinking about how the current archaeological system could work differently. And, even though lots more gets dug post 1990, was there actually a more cohesive strategy for archaeological research when the county units and rescue were first set up in the 1970's.
I think there is also a very good debate to be had over the use and meaning of the slogan 'the human journey'
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
As I said... just thinking (and a bit of playing Devil's Advocate)Certainly agree with both Oxbeast and Gonetopot...
"But the main difference between archaeology, and, say, the water or rail monopolies is that there is no regulator."
and...
"I agree that there are many benefits to a 'single, accredited and answrable' organisation but shouldn't this be English Heritage (before it was emasculated) rather than what is essentially a corporate, development (or developer) led commercial unit?"
Yes... there should (note should) be a regulator. There certainly is a need for one now... one that is structured, acredited, regulated (self or otherwise) and 'with teeth' (ie the cahunas to actually reprimand the shoddies and kick out the naughties). English Heritage is going through a bit of a navel gazing / wound licking thing at the moment and, rightly said, emasculated. So... we come to the IFA (a 'juicy' topic from another thread)... no teeth, a bit self-serving and no real clout in the real world. If there is to be monopoly or even duopoly, there is a real need for an organisation that regulates it strongly, yet justly.
In my more dystopian, navel-gazing moments (often after a few beers)I thought about the future of British archaeology... I've seen two (possibly three) super-units (or uberunits) who have it all stitched up. There will be competition enough between the two (three) of them to keep the wages down, the conditions crap and the clients happy. They will be strong and unanswerable because there is no regulator strong (or willing) enough to take them on. They won't allow unions. They will have swallowed up all the small minnows ages ago, taken the best staff and resources out of them and discarded the rest as junk ("I'm sorry... you're just a bit too old/jaded/underqualified/overspecialised for our company ethos").
In my more utopian, fluffy moments, I've imagined a place where every archaeologist has a job (full-time, core staff), has all the resources necessary to hand and has back-up when ever he/she needs it. Maybe that could come about from having a company monopoly... but it has to be in tandem with a regulatory body that 'kicks butt'.
Anything must be better than the situation we are in (and have been for some time now)
I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-a to chimpanzee,
You'll never make a monkey out of me!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
agree with gorilla totally re. need for strong regulator, which is what my post was about (as well as who choses that regualtor) but put a bit more theoretically!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Working for an uber-company myself, I reckon that there'll always be a place for small units and one-man-bands. Imagine, for example, that not one unit in a given region has a glass specialist. Not enough glass is found by any one organisation to make a full-time position. So one self-employed specialist gets the majority of the glass post-ex in that region.
Equally, Mr and Mrs X run a small unit. They have minimal overheads, few staff costs and lower charge-out rates. Are you going to go to ?65/hour consultant archaeologist for your house extension? Surely you're going to go cheap, and cheap does not necessarily mean that corners are cut or that quality suffers, as larger organisations have issues of greater waste, lower efficiency and (debatably) lower staff motivation, as there is less of a sense of ownership of the company.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
I suppose it really depends on if we want one super unit or many units of one?
I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-a to chimpanzee,
You'll never make a monkey out of me!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
If the alternative was the death of the unit in question, surely this is best outcome for all concerned?:face-approve: Secondly the 'regulator' in archaeology is surely the county/unitary curator in most cases. Thirdly research priorities are defined in the various national and regional research agenda, which are are put together by many archaeologists - curators, contractors, academics etc and are widely consulted upon. The large units do get a lot of the large projects but I see no drift to monopoly - Competition is alive and well in the area I work in. I can think of at least 8 different contractors and 5 consultants who have carried out work here in the last year, including the two concerned - Oxford and CamARC. Don't see any problem with naming them as this is not defamatory. Speaking to contacts at CamARC, none of them have expressed any concerns as to the future of their jobs and conditions, which should surely be our main worry. :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Thank you Vulpes, you said most of what I had to say already!!
I would add that the difference between the archaeological industry and others, such as the rail industry, is not a lack of regulators, but that the value of archeaological work is artificially constructed by planning guidance, rather than valuable in of it self (from a "buy and sell" economic point of view, of course....obviously we know that every post hole is precious). So the value of the rail contract is determined by materials with known values (like steel), and objectives which can be reliably measured ("does that track look straight to you?"), whereas the value of archaeological work is determined by the amount of work required in the brief, which can vary, and a "product" whose quality is difficult to quantify as the objectives can change depending on where you are and what your research objectives are.
So the difference is not that rail is regulated and archaeology is not, but that rail can be objectively regulated and there is a recognition of the need for this regulation (because train crashes are no fun for anyone), whereas in archaeology the work is tricky to regulate consistently, and there is not an acceptance at higher levels (in the wider construction industry and government) for the need for more resources here.
Also, I would think we are never likely to see a monopoly in the archaeological industry because there are so many companies, most of which manage to do a good job for their clients. Think of how dominant Tesco is in the world of supermarkets, and yet even they do not have a monopoly!!!
"don't panic!"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD UNIT LOOKS TO THE FUTURE
Cambridgeshire County Council's Archaeological Field Unit - CAM ARC - has formed a new business partnership with the largest archaeological practice in the UK.
CAM ARC carries out up to 80 archaeological projects a year and employs up to 60 staff. The service has an annual turnover of around ?2 million.
County Councillors have now endorsed plans to transfer CAM ARC to Oxford Archaeology, which will protect the future of the service and enable its work to expand. The service transferred on July 1.
Oxford Archaeology (OA) is the largest archaeological practice in the UK, with offices in Oxford, Lancaster and Montpellier. OA is an independent educational charity governed by a Board of Trustees. It has no connection with the University of Oxford.
Recent OA projects include the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Heathrow
Terminal 5, and it has commissions with the Royal Household, Historic Royal Palaces, the Ministry of Defence, Highways Agency and BAA.
County Council Head of Archaeology Adrian Tindall, said: "OA is involved in a number of major infrastructure projects within the East of England, and has long sought to establish a base within the region and a partnership with CAM ARC is an ideal opportunity to do so, whilst at the same time it offers CAM ARC the opportunity to grow and develop its business."
CAM ARC staff and trade unions have been fully involved in the process and staff expressed a clear preference for partnership with OA and CAM ARC's existing post-excavation and publication commitments will be met.
"CAM ARC is currently a medium-sized operator in one of the most competitive archaeological environments in the UK. The partnership with OA will ensure it remains commercially competitive, whilst safeguarding the future interests of the County Council and its staff," added Mr Tindall.
Oxford Archaeology Chief Executive David Jennings said: "We are very excited about the opportunity for OA to join with CAM ARC as it enables us to offer a more comprehensively national service that is, however, regionally based. It also offers us new perspectives and new potential avenues for research, that are difficult to develop from a smaller core.
We are confident that OA East, as CAM is now called, will build on its
outstanding reputation and continue to provide a basis for a cost-effective service for our clients that also serves the strong public interest in archaeology - as an educational charity we are very committed to the social and cultural benefits of archaeology."
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
As a matter of interest, I matched the advets (last time they both advertised at roughly the same time was prior to April 2008 increases So pay awards were still pending in both cases.
March 2008 adverts: (last best correlation)
CAM Arc (Site Assistant)
UKP 14,492 - UKP 16,217
CAM Arc (Project Officer)
UKP 18,450 - UKP 22,293 pa
Oxford Arch (Project Officer)
UKP 18,070-UKP 21,980
Oxford Arch (Site Assistant)
?14,611 - ?15,793
Will there be a regrading of current staff? - Once again, it does go to job security and career progression... OA will be able to offer that... and Dave Jennings is somebody who has been at the helm of a meteoric rise... I don't see a collapse in the near future.
Broad based discipline is a sensible way forward.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Vulpes: The alternative was not the death of the unit. The county council merely wanted to off load that which it did not have a statutory right to maintain (I wonder how much money, proportionally, an archaeological unit brings in to a council compared to say parking fines).
And in terms of monopoly I was speculating towards the future. Work is plentiful if not abundant in Cambridgshire at the moment but I think alot of people already realise we are at the tail end of a time of plenty. With developers already scaling back how long before this bites archaeology.
|
