IfA - A Chartered Institute

[Sith]

The IfA says that it recommends the use of its quality assured (my emphasis) Registered Organisations. Quality assured surely means that there are both rigorous codes of professional conduct and practice in place and that the IfA ensures that these standards are continuously being met through effective assessment and inspection.

If the IfA are serious that the RO scheme provides a ‘kite mark’ of quality and good practice then the onus must surely fall to the IfA to ensure that ROs are meeting the requirements that they set. It should not be the responsibility of employees (who may not even be members of the IfA) to monitor standards of ROs or to tell the IfA that standards are not being met. If there are ROs out there who are, for example, not providing CPD as required by RO status then the IfA must surely have failed in its monitoring role.

If there is no effective assessment and inspection of standards (and Oxbeast's example suggests these aren't working on the ground) then what is the point of RO status?

Are you suggesting that IfA should monitor the behaviour of ROs round the clock? Because that would appear to be the only alternative to the current inspection system (or something similar but more frequent). Also, some infringements will always be impossible to spot unless someone puts their head above the parapet and makes a complaint.

PS, I'm not sure how effective or probing the inspections are but I'll have a better idea once we've had our latest one in a few weeks.

[Wax]

PS, I'm not sure how effective or probing the inspections are but I'll have a better idea once we've had our latest one in a few weeks.

Bet they make an appointment to come and inspect you, time to brush a few things under the carpet:face-stir:
(not that I am insinuating that our resident Dark Lord is anything other than squeaky clean)

[BAJR]

I do like spot checks with a few weeks notice but seriously. do RIBA for example do spot checks? or should we be relying more on a robust complaints system.

THe Secret BAJR does seem to do quite well. companies are aware that telling me one thing and doing another. will get back to me and I am robust. But open to discussion. IN a way it is not good to hammer companies.. as they provide the work and have to survive. and they are against other companies who are... yup you guessed it. but the costs to keep going... BUT... to do that it cuts everything to the bone.

I tell you... if I was inspected today... you would find an un-numbered finds tray ... waiting for me to find what the hell happened. but a neat archive and spotless accounts. ... being BAJR means I have to be so careful.. I know people would love to get some dirt on me! and I have to squeak when I walk.

[Unitof1]

I dont think that riba rely in any way shape and form on the threat or effeicacy of spot checks or concepts of the stick rather than the carrot. They rely on a critical market mass in which if the design falls down you are done for.

The real truth is that there are not many of "us". And that "us" is a rather sad collective. Oxbeast has put up some recently produced figueres of the membership of the ifa which barely add up to the membership of your average local womens institue of a small market town. Most of that ifa number do not have to rely on scraping back the next section to make an observation and commit it to a record and then make sure that it must survive. The padding is obscene.

I would suggest that at least five sixths of the people (acutally more) who do rely on scraping back a section and recording it are not in the ifa, and of those who are self employed half are probably here on this forum. Theres about twenty of "us" and ten of "us" are not here.

Ps: If I was to be inspected I would and have been failed on every count.

i Take it as a badge of honor.

Why they inspecting me in the first place hay?

Is it cause I is field archaeologist?

[RedEarth]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/align]

Conveniently lifted from the IfA monthly e-bulletin issued this morning.

I think those figures say everything there is to say about the IfA (although before I start I should say I am a member and do believe it has an important role to play, I'm just not sure whether chartered status isn't a bit of a red herring). Over 50% of the corporate membership are MiFAs! I'm guessing that in actual employment terms considerably less than 50% of the archaeologists out there are managers. In what way can it possibly represent all archaeologists. Of course it can't - how many of that 50% have been in the IfA for over 20 years? Do they really want to see anything change that will allow those below them to climb the greasy pole? What is the distribution of members (at all levels) working in commercial archaeology, compared to say, universities or museums or acting as curators? The IfA cannot reasonably represent all of those diverse roles, certainly not on issues of employment and career structure, which is one of the main sources of complaint on this forum. We would be better off with a separate organisation that dealt with the large number of archaeologists working in commercial archaeology who are at present either not members or not represented in any way rather than worrying about chartered status.

[Dinosaur]

and what proportion of their membership has their subs paid for them by their employers? Several people here are/have been IFA members purely because their employer shelled-out, not because they ever had any personal interest in joining (and with one exception of those I talked to they are no longer members once they've moved on)

[RedEarth]

and what proportion of their membership has their subs paid for them by their employers? Several people here are/have been IFA members purely because their employer shelled-out, not because they ever had any personal interest in joining (and with one exception of those I talked to they are no longer members once they've moved on)

But only complete idiot would turn down the offer of their membership being paid for free, surely!?

[kevin wooldridge]

It isn't unusual for employers in Chartered professions to pay the subscriptions of members...if that is a way to ensure membership of the IfA I am all in favour of it !!

[barkingdigger]

and what proportion of their membership has their subs paid for them by their employers? Several people here are/have been IFA members purely because their employer shelled-out, not because they ever had any personal interest in joining (and with one exception of those I talked to they are no longer members once they've moved on)

Perversely, I held a job for over a decade where it would have been paid, but didn't join. Now that I'm no longer in that position I feel that joining up may be in my best interests!

[Dinosaur]

It isn't unusual for employers in Chartered professions to pay the subscriptions of members...if that is a way to ensure membership of the IfA I am all in favour of it !!

Just pondering what proportion of the existing IFA membership give a ****, if you add the 'don't care but its free' contingent to the percentage at the bottom end who've only decided to hand over a lump of their income each month cos someone told them it would help them get a job (has that ever happened?), it must reduce the 'real' membership by a fair bit? :face-stir: