3rd June 2008, 03:06 PM
..This means that the scope of any work done ... is tied up in a complex system where interpretations have a material impact on the level of work done. It would not be sensible to introduce a non-archaeologist to this, as an archaeological backgroun...
Of course. I would not disagree with the point that archaeologists should be involved with the SOW (in fact, I've argued that archaeologists at all levels of the project should be MORE involved). Also, having done my share of proposals and costs as well, it just ain't all that complex most of the time
I'm going beyond SOW, to actual management. What is your structure for managing a project; how do you measure success (from a profit/loss viewpoint); how do you improve your actions or learn from mistakes; what goals do you set on each project for time, money, personnel; where do you stand with your profit forecasts from year to year, are you hitting them, do you even have them? Those are the kinds of management questions that I think should be part of CRM and that I never see.
...Also, having a non-archaeological finance director won't make much difference as it is the operational management which will determine the turnover and profitability of the company...
Having a finance director that doesn't know what they're doing can run a company into the ground and/or get them into tax problems quicker than you can say CFO, regardless of the quality of operational management (although I would question the management that put that person in place, and have.) Further, a good finance director can make a huge impact on profitability! It's their job to point out overages, tax loopholes, money management, investments, etc.
So, presumably the next point is that "they can be an archaeologist and still be a good financial director". I'm sure such a person exists, but if you want a really good financial director, would you rather see that they have an MA in archaeology and 6 years of field work with a course in accounting, or that they have a minor in archaeology from undergrad and 5 years working under a CFO at an engineering firm?
Sara
Of course. I would not disagree with the point that archaeologists should be involved with the SOW (in fact, I've argued that archaeologists at all levels of the project should be MORE involved). Also, having done my share of proposals and costs as well, it just ain't all that complex most of the time
I'm going beyond SOW, to actual management. What is your structure for managing a project; how do you measure success (from a profit/loss viewpoint); how do you improve your actions or learn from mistakes; what goals do you set on each project for time, money, personnel; where do you stand with your profit forecasts from year to year, are you hitting them, do you even have them? Those are the kinds of management questions that I think should be part of CRM and that I never see.
...Also, having a non-archaeological finance director won't make much difference as it is the operational management which will determine the turnover and profitability of the company...
Having a finance director that doesn't know what they're doing can run a company into the ground and/or get them into tax problems quicker than you can say CFO, regardless of the quality of operational management (although I would question the management that put that person in place, and have.) Further, a good finance director can make a huge impact on profitability! It's their job to point out overages, tax loopholes, money management, investments, etc.
So, presumably the next point is that "they can be an archaeologist and still be a good financial director". I'm sure such a person exists, but if you want a really good financial director, would you rather see that they have an MA in archaeology and 6 years of field work with a course in accounting, or that they have a minor in archaeology from undergrad and 5 years working under a CFO at an engineering firm?
Sara