22nd May 2006, 02:12 PM
My previous post seems to have started a bit of a barney, and is getting criticism from both sides - from Dr Peter Wardle, who thinks that I am unethically suggesting that I can tell a client to do things he doesn't have to; and from Mercenary and others, who think that I am justifying recommending the minimum requirement.
Actually, both sides have misunderstood what I said. The point I meant to get across was that a consultant does not work in isolation; we are constrained (just like anyone else) by the legislative and regulatory framework that we work under.
On Dr Pete's point, he has got my original point completely back to front. I didn't propose to tell a client to do anything extra - what I said was that we could advise them on best practice, or what is advisable to do in their own interests (e.g. for risk reduction), as long as we also identify what is their actual requirement to comply with legal or regulatory requirements. They can then make an informed choice. Note here that some clients want to work to best practice, and others will recognise that sticking to minimum legal requirements may leave them exposed to more risk.
On Mercenary's point, again he has misunderstood. I do not use this argument for justifying the minimum. I will always advise the client on what is necessary to achieve the objective (e.g. a proper evaluation) on the basis of best practice. However, if a curator then issues a planning brief which specifies a meaninglessly-small sample of less than 1%, what am I to do? conceal it from the client? This is a real case, where we had prepared the client for a requirement of up to 5%. It was the curator, not my firm, that cut the sample.
On Mercenary's question to me - yes, I do feel good about my role. I am confident that my involvement in any project has always resulted in the archaeology being better protected and/or being more effectively investigated than would have been the case if there was no consultant involved.
Bear in mind as well that the bulk of most consultants' work is in EIA, where the focus is on preventing the impacts from happening (or reducing them) in the first place, before we ever get close to a field investigation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Actually, both sides have misunderstood what I said. The point I meant to get across was that a consultant does not work in isolation; we are constrained (just like anyone else) by the legislative and regulatory framework that we work under.
On Dr Pete's point, he has got my original point completely back to front. I didn't propose to tell a client to do anything extra - what I said was that we could advise them on best practice, or what is advisable to do in their own interests (e.g. for risk reduction), as long as we also identify what is their actual requirement to comply with legal or regulatory requirements. They can then make an informed choice. Note here that some clients want to work to best practice, and others will recognise that sticking to minimum legal requirements may leave them exposed to more risk.
On Mercenary's point, again he has misunderstood. I do not use this argument for justifying the minimum. I will always advise the client on what is necessary to achieve the objective (e.g. a proper evaluation) on the basis of best practice. However, if a curator then issues a planning brief which specifies a meaninglessly-small sample of less than 1%, what am I to do? conceal it from the client? This is a real case, where we had prepared the client for a requirement of up to 5%. It was the curator, not my firm, that cut the sample.
On Mercenary's question to me - yes, I do feel good about my role. I am confident that my involvement in any project has always resulted in the archaeology being better protected and/or being more effectively investigated than would have been the case if there was no consultant involved.
Bear in mind as well that the bulk of most consultants' work is in EIA, where the focus is on preventing the impacts from happening (or reducing them) in the first place, before we ever get close to a field investigation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished