18th April 2011, 11:20 AM
Quote:My long experience with commercial archaeology tells me thatmoney is a secondary consideration with most developers (at least in terms ofthe miserly amount they pay for archaeology) compared to time lost ondevelopment projects delayed through archaeological intervention. What reallypisses developers off (and did in the old days before they were even made topay for archaeology) is when archaeologists delay projects through takinglonger than necessary on site.
From a developer's point of view, a delay IS a financial loss. They potentially have materials, plant and staff sitting around doing nothing. The project finishes later than planned, meaning they can't use/flog what's being built as soon as anticipated - money not in their company account, interest not accruing. Next project along the line is delayed, causing the same knock-on financial issues.
We should never lose sight of the fact that in a commercial arena, delay=financial loss. In any of my previous working enviroments, a delay could be quantified financially. e.g. "System X has been down for three hours - that's cost this company $xxx,000 dollars" (usually followed by a stream of colourful invective questioning my evolutionary state and the legitimacy of my ancestral background). Trust me, for every day that a construction project is held up by archaeological considerations, there will be a bean counter totting up the fiscal damage, chewing a desk and making life miserable for the people at the sharp end. Whom the archaeologists then unfortunately have to deal with.
Public participation - and more of it - is vital to archaeology. But if Southport think they're going to move their ideas into a commercial arena, I still think they'll find themselves hamstrung.