31st October 2006, 02:17 PM
Posted by BAJR Host:
A minimum standard is one that can be enforced, because it must be reached. If current standards are too lax, the solution is not to replace minimums with exemplaries; it is to raise the bar by improving the minimum standard.
In relation to Hurting Back's comments about what is 'necessary' and what is not - I don't look at the word 'necessary' in terms of 'what is required to achieve the minimum required by the brief'. Rather, I look at it in terms of what is required to meet the Aims and Objectives that should be set in the Brief or Specification. Those aims and objectives should always determine what is 'necessary' in the scope of the investigation, at every stage. If the aims and objectives are properly set, then any additional work not necessary to achieve them would be hard to justify.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I do feel that minimum standards should be 'replaced' with exemplary standards, as we all know that to 'win' contracts we have to cut cloth etc to the minimum required, as the developer does not want to pay for 5 extra soil samples for example if they don't need to...Posted by Hurting Back:
Quote:quote: I like the idea of 'exemplary' standards rather than minimum; what may not be 'necessary' to achieve the minimum required by a brief may actually be very useful in determining development impacts more accurately and in fine tuning research objectives to avoid surprises in post excavation costs, for instance.The trouble with setting 'exemplary' standards is that, by definition, you are saying "it would be nice to reach this standard, but it's ok not to". In other words, it is not enforceable. Therefore, if you have exemplary standards instead of minimum ones, there is no 'floor' - you can go as low as you like.
A minimum standard is one that can be enforced, because it must be reached. If current standards are too lax, the solution is not to replace minimums with exemplaries; it is to raise the bar by improving the minimum standard.
In relation to Hurting Back's comments about what is 'necessary' and what is not - I don't look at the word 'necessary' in terms of 'what is required to achieve the minimum required by the brief'. Rather, I look at it in terms of what is required to meet the Aims and Objectives that should be set in the Brief or Specification. Those aims and objectives should always determine what is 'necessary' in the scope of the investigation, at every stage. If the aims and objectives are properly set, then any additional work not necessary to achieve them would be hard to justify.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished