29th November 2010, 09:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 29th November 2010, 09:45 PM by vulpes.)
Peer review aside, all curators can legitimately do at the moment is hold contractors to the brief and subsequent documentation, WSIs, Post-Ex Assessments and Updated Project Designs all the products of MAP2 or MoRPHE or whatever system you're using today.
So, for example if a PXA/UPD flags up potential for further examination / analysis / discussion of this or that; the curator should expect to see it in the final report. If it's not there, the report's a bad 'un and should be rejected. Conversely if the Project Manager at the contractor is doing their job properly everything promised in the preceding documentation should be delivered unless there's an over-riding reason for it not to be. Easy, as long as the key actors are adequately resourced to do this checking.
Odinn's model is fine, but would need funding. And is also predicated on the assumption that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports which I'm not sure that I agree with. But then again, I'm probably not qualified to comment eh? }
I would also add that the above system depends on a quantity of goodwill from the contractor (thin ice if you don't approve their reports?), not to mention the potential difficulties associated with actually enforcing any of this through the planning system which between us is a bit of a nightmare.
I 've still not voted on the (still) badly worded survey at the top of this thread either.
So, for example if a PXA/UPD flags up potential for further examination / analysis / discussion of this or that; the curator should expect to see it in the final report. If it's not there, the report's a bad 'un and should be rejected. Conversely if the Project Manager at the contractor is doing their job properly everything promised in the preceding documentation should be delivered unless there's an over-riding reason for it not to be. Easy, as long as the key actors are adequately resourced to do this checking.
Odinn's model is fine, but would need funding. And is also predicated on the assumption that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports which I'm not sure that I agree with. But then again, I'm probably not qualified to comment eh? }
I would also add that the above system depends on a quantity of goodwill from the contractor (thin ice if you don't approve their reports?), not to mention the potential difficulties associated with actually enforcing any of this through the planning system which between us is a bit of a nightmare.
I 've still not voted on the (still) badly worded survey at the top of this thread either.