21st February 2008, 09:32 PM
I do not disagree with anything that has been written so far in this thread by strong supporters of the market model. Like all service businesses, the biggest asset of archaeological companies is the staff. Successful businesses will recognise this, and see that they are also buyers in an internal market where the best staff can choose who they work for. Keeping these people happy, well paid, motivated and interested will give the business a competitive edge. A structured approach to staff training will pay a dividend on investment, and being nice to staff stops the investment walking out of the door!
I am a believer, and recognise the vast gains that have been made by commercial sector archaeology, but I do not have an unquestioned zeal for the market. The market principles that govern archaeology are different to law or other services with professional monopolies. The archaeological market is an artificial creation, with buyers purchasing a service that enables them to discharge planning conditions. The product (archive, reports and final publication) is something buyers must share with the state. They do not have exclusive control of this, and there is no market logic to drive the quality of the product #8211; which is why regulatory mechanisms, howsoever they may be conceived, need to be deployed by the state to control quality. As I have already mentioned, this is administered in Ireland by controlling access to the market with a license system.
I welcome regulatory mechanisms because I believe that if society wants to achieve something for the common good then this is as much a public task as a commercial endeavour. I distinguish between quality management of archaeology (managing a program of archaeological work on time and budget) with quality archaeology (generating new secure knowledge of the past). The two things are far from mutually exclusive, but we should recognise that it is entirely possible for an archaeological company to trade on an exceptional reputation in the construction industry while producing consistently substandard results for the archaeological community. We are currently generating vast swathes of information, but not realising the potential of that data as knowledge about the past. I am objecting to the Fordist principle of finding a model that works and selling lots and lots and lots. Archaeology deals in uncertainties, and is far too important to be left in the hands of the bean counters who would have us believe otherwise.
I am a believer, and recognise the vast gains that have been made by commercial sector archaeology, but I do not have an unquestioned zeal for the market. The market principles that govern archaeology are different to law or other services with professional monopolies. The archaeological market is an artificial creation, with buyers purchasing a service that enables them to discharge planning conditions. The product (archive, reports and final publication) is something buyers must share with the state. They do not have exclusive control of this, and there is no market logic to drive the quality of the product #8211; which is why regulatory mechanisms, howsoever they may be conceived, need to be deployed by the state to control quality. As I have already mentioned, this is administered in Ireland by controlling access to the market with a license system.
I welcome regulatory mechanisms because I believe that if society wants to achieve something for the common good then this is as much a public task as a commercial endeavour. I distinguish between quality management of archaeology (managing a program of archaeological work on time and budget) with quality archaeology (generating new secure knowledge of the past). The two things are far from mutually exclusive, but we should recognise that it is entirely possible for an archaeological company to trade on an exceptional reputation in the construction industry while producing consistently substandard results for the archaeological community. We are currently generating vast swathes of information, but not realising the potential of that data as knowledge about the past. I am objecting to the Fordist principle of finding a model that works and selling lots and lots and lots. Archaeology deals in uncertainties, and is far too important to be left in the hands of the bean counters who would have us believe otherwise.