28th November 2009, 12:38 PM
Quote:"Price is not always the principal thing on which an archaeological project is awarded. Timetables and quality are also very important, as they actually reduce the risk to a project's programme."
Delivery on time surely depends on the quality of the product being produced, and corners can and will be cut. I agree that timetables are a major consideration for developers but that, in the end is just about reducing costs. I don't agree that developers award contracts with regard to quality of the archaeological product. Nominally maybe, but what developer is going to hold their hands up to admit to bad archaeology having been done on their watch? We should be very, very, wary of allowing the developer to be the judge of what constitutes acceptable standards of archaeology.
I do not believe that trying to ensure quality by grading ability will have the long term desired goal. I believe the only way to ensure quality in the product is to be able to assess the product itself - ie the results of the work. If work is completed below standard, then the main contractor and sub contractor should be held accountable.
The way towards this is to agree sets of minimum standards, as is (too slowly) being addressed, and build on those standards. Then you have to police those standards so that there is some kind of yard stick or template. I think you have to be able to judge a job done badly before you can affirm an RO or whatever accreditation system you use, has broken any rules. And of course this has to be punishable.