Current job advert

[Jack]

surely that is some sort of breach of aup... besides if it is true then the greasy pole must have been pulled up since, er, monday, when some members of staff were indeed promoted. Also is anyone seriously suggesting that someone should be paid ?20,914.57 for writing DBAs?

I am paid more than that to write DBA's

[gonetopot]

Then count yourself very lucky indeed. Gizza job...

[Jack]

Sorry, not got any spare at the moment.

I'd disagree that DBA's are easy simple or should be written by site assistants............someone must be writing very poor DBA's somewhere.

In most respects a DBA is the most important part of the process in commercial archaeology, it is the report that considers the likelyhood of archaeological remains to be impacted by the development, and now, includes an assessment of the visual impact of the development on Heritage assets in the surrounds.

A good DBA includes a statement of the potential impacts and provides a strategy for their mitigation.

To accurately assess the impact you need to understand the regional research frameworks, resource assessments but also need a working knowledge of the region for all those troublesome sites that don't appear on the HER. You need to be able to interpret earthworks, aerial photographs, geophysical surveys, fieldwalking data and to know when these don't provide a good indication of the presence of unrecorded archaeology.

Furthermore, updated project designs and research designs are starting to creep into DBA's.

Hardly the thing you'd expect a site assistant to have the right experience and skills to undertake (not that site assistants can't do it.........just they should be paid the appropriate amount for the work).

BUT, after seeing some of the DBA's produced by some clients - just basic lists from the HER, I'm not surprised.

Shame on anyone encouraging this erosion of standards.}

[gonetopot]

Point well-made - I wasn't saying site assistants should do DBAs (they have there own important skills), just equating where the office/field positions tend to sit in the hierarchy.

But that was a very neat description of what DBAs should have in them - perhaps you should submit it for the 'revised' job description, and then perhaps people would say - ah, more responsibility, should be paid more.

[Unitof1]

DBA is the most important part of the process in commercial archaeology

name one example

[P Prentice]

just goes to show that dba is as meaningless as project officer - but the issue remains that the industry should multilaterally pay more and charge more - the offending job description does not help our cause

[BAJR]

i think what we see from this is that a framework for archaeology posts and the resposibility attached to said post (inc progression) would be useful. i did once consider creating this, however was informed that i would have difficulty in enforcing it...and had no right too... fair enough.

it should be pointed out that this post is not for the only person doing it... but for the most junior level of said post... with others proving guidance, etc. progression possible.

this is why the g levels give suggestions of job title...but lean more to responsibility. otherwise job title is open to abuse. in this case i was satisfied that the post (if not the post title) fitted the grade just.

the rest of the discussion about what we pay in general... now that requires an industry wide movement. can you imagine the uicide that a company would commit if it raised rates by 45% every other company would be cheaper. and of course the ROs would not agree... as the non ROs would always be cheaper... do we value ourselves? i think we know the answer to that one.

[Jack]

name one example

All of them

[Jack]

i think what we see from this is that a framework for archaeology posts and the resposibility attached to said post (inc progression) would be useful. i did once consider creating this, however was informed that i would have difficulty in enforcing it...and had no right too... fair enough.

it should be pointed out that this post is not for the only person doing it... but for the most junior level of said post... with others proving guidance, etc. progression possible.

.............

Thats the best way to learn. I'd say its fine, all the information is clearly there. It's just important to debate and point at the small print for those with rosy tinted glasses or bad eye sight.

[P Prentice]

i think what we see from this is that a framework for archaeology posts and the resposibility attached to said post (inc progression) would be useful. i did once consider creating this, however was informed that i would have difficulty in enforcing it...and had no right too... fair enough.

it should be pointed out that this post is not for the only person doing it... but for the most junior level of said post... with others proving guidance, etc. progression possible.

this is why the g levels give suggestions of job title...but lean more to responsibility. otherwise job title is open to abuse. in this case i was satisfied that the post (if not the post title) fitted the grade just.

the rest of the discussion about what we pay in general... now that requires an industry wide movement. can you imagine the uicide that a company would commit if it raised rates by 45% every other company would be cheaper. and of course the ROs would not agree... as the non ROs would always be cheaper... do we value ourselves? i think we know the answer to that one.

no fault to you bajr but what this dosent address is the fact that the postholder will have project officer on there cv but not necessarily the relevant skills or experience
we all know what a supervisoe is and we all know what the next tier of project officer should be - dont we?