23rd February 2012, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 23rd February 2012, 11:21 AM by ken_whittaker.)
Jim Hunter Wrote:I've never been convinced that the RAO scheme added much for thsoe companies if every archaeologist in that organization was in the IfA anyway and its other procedures were being monitoried by BSI or similar.
By far the better arrangement.....individual accreditation through the Institute, backed up by an accredited company quality managment system, externally audited to recognised standards consistent with the industries we serve. It ensures transparency, accountability and drives up the standard of business management, which are the fundamental problems facing the profession.
Yet the RO scheme seems determined to proliferate such problems. For instance the scheme does not measure quality in the terms set out in ISO 9000, yet many the time have I encountered statements implying such. It is lamentable that the RO scheme ignores standards of business management, which over the past three years have resulted in many ROs accumulating trading deficits of eyewatering levels, and which are responsible for the appaling employment issues the profession constantly wringes it hands over.
Yet this situation can be easily resolved, the multi-disciplinary consultancies point a way forward, and it doesn't need the IfA to pass up on the RO scheme, although it does question the need. If ISO 9000 acceditation was an entry requirement the scheme would continue to be self regulatory, but with the benefit of competent quality auditing, that can be provided to the IfA to demonstrate compliance with professional business and technical standards.