2nd October 2010, 12:03 PM
In response to comments: The original concept of MIFA as defined was "a person judged to have expertise and years of experience, capable of managing all aspects of complex projects". In recent times this has been extended to cover those excelling in a speciality, not necessarily archaeological management. Many briefs and specifications state "project to be managed by an MIFA" in the expectation that this will ensure that the manager is capable of managing the project. IFA rules state that an MIFA must not undertake projects that they are not equipped to handle but the accreditation was originally intended to ensure competence. Clients, Authorities have no way of assessing if an MIFA is capable, relying only on the accreditation. The merger proposes all MAAIS are given MIFA, this means that somebody say very expert in reconstruction, could be considered by others to be capable of "managing all aspects of complex projects". Whilst I have no objection to a expert specialist being acknowledged as such, this is producing confusion, which does the profession no good