6th October 2014, 03:55 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:In the old days diggers dug and site assistants (who assisted the director/supervisors, you had to get promoted to site assistant in days of yore!) did the recording - actually it can/did work fine. On smaller jobs I always do as much of the recording as possible myself, partly cos I can actually read my own handwriting and also since I leave the site at the end secure in the knowledge I have an internally consistent site archive and no nasty surprises in px...till the C14 dates come back, anyway....
The major drawback to letting everyone do their own site recording is that you, er, have to let everyone do their own site recording :face-crying:
I guess I've only seen it run the one way, and I happen to like it because it meant I learned from the start how to record to the company standards, and I like to see individuals take responsibility for the work they do. But, I admit, that there can be a fair bit of, to be diplomatic, 'reinterpretation' of records from some people... But it's the ones who consistently fail to produce adequate work that don't get the contract extensions or the permanent positions. Usually. This system produces individuals with a wider skill-set and who are more useful to the company, as anyone who's progressed past trainee can be put on any job and be left to do the work with far less supervision. Maybe I'm lucky with the company I work for, because to my mind it is well worth the effort and time teaching the trainees how to record properly.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.