15th July 2008, 02:41 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
Redearth could you go a little further and say that they were obscene disgrace to archaeology and/or to charities. Youll feel better.
I'm not sure I could go that far but this whole topic raises several issues about the larger units. It's hard to see how archaeology in the developer funded sector can become more - what's the word, professiony? Professionist? Professional, that's the one - with large numbers of people working for charities. Where's the insentive when any sort of bonus for your commitment that might be on offer is swallowed up by the larger charitable remit (if I understand it correctly, I prepare to be shot down in flames!)? The whole concept of a charity seems to fly in the face of acceptable opportunities for everyone working at such companies.
Also, with regard to companies working in large areas, obviously certain sizes of project can only be carried out by a certain number of projects, but if projects can be won in areas at some distance from a unit (any unit, I'm not naming names!) then something is getting squeezed quite badly somewhere. Even on travel costs alone, particularly as they continue to go up, this doesn't make a lot of sense. I think there's a lot to be said for local knowledge; if nothing else it would help eliminate the sort of identikit reports that are produced by people working outside of familiar territory.
Just thought that smiley face was looking a bit bored