23rd September 2009, 02:51 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:the base-line appears to be whether Value For Money was delivered by the construction companies ... if that could be demonstrated for archaeology (eg graduate workforce/skilled technicians, public interaction, peer reviewed results) then perhapes there would be no problem...?
Indeed, but it depends on who is defining what is valuable - if developers (i.e. the principle client) place no value on things like graduate workforce, public interaction, peer reviewed results (although they might be forced to see these things as valuable by a dilligent curatorial service) then they are valueless. The clients of developers will, or at least should, see the value in good work on the other hand.