27th May 2008, 03:07 PM
It's encouraging that there are people out there that do have confidence in their companies and their management. However:
"The problem (or good thing?) is that people see themselves as archaeologists 1st and business people 2nd. Which means that the archaeology often suffers less than the archaeologists do!"
To take the point above that the archaeology doesn't suffer, I have to disagree. One case in point is the quality of fieldwork done at the most basic tech level. It has long been lamented that field techs are not adequately trained (sometimes even after years in the field) due to a variety of factors. If you've been in CRM for even a short period of time, I'm sure you can think of several instances where sites/features were improperly dug; too quickly dug; artifacts left in the back dirt; etc.
I'm not here to call out bad field techs, but to show this as an example of how non-business oriented CRM management can lead to poor fieldwork and thus damage to the record. In many idustries, entry level jobs exist with the implication that those employees will be trained to a point where they will advance to the next level, whereupon those (let's call them field directors) will in turn train and be trained for the next level (let's call them PIs), and so on. In all of the CRM companies I've worked with or had friends work with, I've never heard of field techs being required to really know the laws. To really understand the WHY of the work. I've also known many field directors put into their positions because of a degree and not experience (and then cringe when I hear about the quality of the sites they are botching up).
How would CRM be different if management/staffing placed an emphasis on professional development, on efficiency of work, on getting the most reports accepted without objection due to poor fieldwork? How could they better position themselves in the industry by promoting this type of management focus?
Some examples: What if we required all field directors to drill techs on digging techniques AND relevant CRM laws and regulations. What if we expected all field directors to KNOW the laws, the proposal of the project, the purpose of the fieldwork. If PIs were forced to include the field directors' input while writing up proposals, estimating field time, etc. What if incentives were put in place to encourage field techs to complete projects on time (with requirements on the field director that all field notes and work must be done to a certain standard and all incentives based on the acceptance of the work by the local regulatory body). I could go on.
Anyway, the point is that with CRM management being archaeologists first and business savvy second, I think fieldwork does suffer.
Sara
"The problem (or good thing?) is that people see themselves as archaeologists 1st and business people 2nd. Which means that the archaeology often suffers less than the archaeologists do!"
To take the point above that the archaeology doesn't suffer, I have to disagree. One case in point is the quality of fieldwork done at the most basic tech level. It has long been lamented that field techs are not adequately trained (sometimes even after years in the field) due to a variety of factors. If you've been in CRM for even a short period of time, I'm sure you can think of several instances where sites/features were improperly dug; too quickly dug; artifacts left in the back dirt; etc.
I'm not here to call out bad field techs, but to show this as an example of how non-business oriented CRM management can lead to poor fieldwork and thus damage to the record. In many idustries, entry level jobs exist with the implication that those employees will be trained to a point where they will advance to the next level, whereupon those (let's call them field directors) will in turn train and be trained for the next level (let's call them PIs), and so on. In all of the CRM companies I've worked with or had friends work with, I've never heard of field techs being required to really know the laws. To really understand the WHY of the work. I've also known many field directors put into their positions because of a degree and not experience (and then cringe when I hear about the quality of the sites they are botching up).
How would CRM be different if management/staffing placed an emphasis on professional development, on efficiency of work, on getting the most reports accepted without objection due to poor fieldwork? How could they better position themselves in the industry by promoting this type of management focus?
Some examples: What if we required all field directors to drill techs on digging techniques AND relevant CRM laws and regulations. What if we expected all field directors to KNOW the laws, the proposal of the project, the purpose of the fieldwork. If PIs were forced to include the field directors' input while writing up proposals, estimating field time, etc. What if incentives were put in place to encourage field techs to complete projects on time (with requirements on the field director that all field notes and work must be done to a certain standard and all incentives based on the acceptance of the work by the local regulatory body). I could go on.
Anyway, the point is that with CRM management being archaeologists first and business savvy second, I think fieldwork does suffer.
Sara