Pushing too Hard?

[Sniffer]

I can agree in part with the concept of smaller organisations having smaller overheads - though it starts to show as a difference when both organisations are working at capacity. A small contractor having to meet all the business overheads from one job at a time, one after the other is at a financial disadavantage against a large contractor running twenty jobs at a time without twenty times the office overheads. I think the percentage of invoice allocated to business running costs will generally be lower the larger the business gets. It seems to be that way in most industries.

I wrote my original response without reading pages 2 and 3 of the thread (which was enlightened of me) and I should clarify that 'penalty' to a business would be the same as in many industry self-regulating bodies - criteria met = membership = share of the cake because membership is generally specified. Criteria not met = no cake. I was being general.

So your suggestion is that all firms compete on an equal footing? If market muscle doesn't work - then what are those bigger companies doing right that enables them to stay big? Whilst there are plenty of small archaeological organisations doing quite nicely, there are probably a lot more small ones not doing nicely than there are larger ones not doing nicely.

I don't buy the idea that all small businesses deliver the same package and price as the big boys. There's no reason to choose them at all if that's the case.