5th February 2013, 10:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th February 2013, 10:06 PM by GnomeKing.)
yes sir indeedy : 'who is carrying out the checks?!'
this : "I don't see how there is any higher level of responsibility in archaeology than filling in a context sheet"
and this :"Its a bit like saying archaeology cant be done unless there is a management hierarchy."
are also very good points. (although Uo1, military and antiquarianism ?...)
A critical separation of Technical Standards and Management Hierarchies is now necessary for the IFA to move forward.
(a separation of church and state if you like....)
A minimally necessary (but insufficient) step is to make 'archaeological skills/experience' completely separate from 'management experience'....
...[@oxbeast] Precisely because 'Management Grade' is very-much self-evidently NOT a sufficient or necessary guide to technical abilities...and especially not a predictor for commitment to the highest possible standards.
[we might also consider, for example, the large numbers of people who go up and down grades as they work for different companies, or self-employed, or are made redundant etc. ... perhapes KA@LR&IFA did not know or count them?]
The 'Skills Passport' was an ugly-arsed idea 15 years ago, and still is today (how is the roll out going BTW - NOTlol).
What was/is needed is a mentoring system based on trust, e.g. where the 'mentors' are rated on Technical Ability (not management grade)....
The fact is that 99% of 'training' is completely down to what individuals happen to be on site, good or bad - this will remain the case, regardless of any daft 'Passport'.
The skills passport (unfortunately) was and still is a peripheral sop, whilst naked corporatism ('management hierarchies' if you like) has been hammered right intro the heart of the core IFA membership structure.
TIME TO START AGAIN?
this : "I don't see how there is any higher level of responsibility in archaeology than filling in a context sheet"
and this :"Its a bit like saying archaeology cant be done unless there is a management hierarchy."
are also very good points. (although Uo1, military and antiquarianism ?...)
A critical separation of Technical Standards and Management Hierarchies is now necessary for the IFA to move forward.
(a separation of church and state if you like....)
A minimally necessary (but insufficient) step is to make 'archaeological skills/experience' completely separate from 'management experience'....
...[@oxbeast] Precisely because 'Management Grade' is very-much self-evidently NOT a sufficient or necessary guide to technical abilities...and especially not a predictor for commitment to the highest possible standards.
[we might also consider, for example, the large numbers of people who go up and down grades as they work for different companies, or self-employed, or are made redundant etc. ... perhapes KA@LR&IFA did not know or count them?]
The 'Skills Passport' was an ugly-arsed idea 15 years ago, and still is today (how is the roll out going BTW - NOTlol).
What was/is needed is a mentoring system based on trust, e.g. where the 'mentors' are rated on Technical Ability (not management grade)....
The fact is that 99% of 'training' is completely down to what individuals happen to be on site, good or bad - this will remain the case, regardless of any daft 'Passport'.
The skills passport (unfortunately) was and still is a peripheral sop, whilst naked corporatism ('management hierarchies' if you like) has been hammered right intro the heart of the core IFA membership structure.
TIME TO START AGAIN?