IFA RO only as approved contractors

[P Prentice]

....but ..who and why would anybody challange

[diggingthedirt]

The original question was whether a planning authority can require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. The fact that some LPAs are apparently doing so would suggest yes?

There is undoubtedly a second, and slightly different, question arising from the original post - and that is whether it is right for a planning authority to require an organisation to be a RO in order to undertake archaeological work required by planning condition. I suspect the answer to that is always going to be based on an individual?s opinion of the IfA.

In the rush to polarise this debate into a ?for or against the IfA? question, it strikes me that we are missing the wood for the trees. The point is that curators are already influencing who gets to work in ?their? patch by advising applicants of contractors who have undertaken similar work:

?In general I would put more weight to a contractor who has successfully brought similar projects to completion to a high standard as a better indicator of having the relevant expertise.?

Applicants, getting a whiff of life made easy, are likely to only seek quotes from the names provided by the curator. This sometimes works in our favour, sometimes not. As a barrier to entry it is opaque and open to bias. By ensuring that only RO?s can qualify for work, it is merely clarifying the selection process with recourse to an externally verifiable source. As a regulatory move it is not only fair, but also seen to be fair ? an essential prerequisite to a proper functioning competitive market.

We need to move much much further in this direction. Commercial archaeology?s problems are structural, and solutions therefore need to be found at that level.

[vulpes]

sez the man who works for an RO

[Sparky]

As a regulatory move it is not only fair, but also seen to be fair – an essential prerequisite to a proper functioning competitive market.

We need to move much much further in this direction. Commercial archaeology’s problems are structural, and solutions therefore need to be found at that level.

I think this misses the point slightly. It may be seen to be fair to an outsider and non archaeologist, but we on the inside are not convinced by some of the mechanisms within the IfA, and this is clearly illustrated by the low membership of archaeologists, the low number of curators willing to take up the RO preference, and by the very fact we are having this discussion. Brushing it under the carpet will not get rid of the problems.

And the structural problems you mention are well embedded within the IfA but not within its ideology, which is great, but with some of those who make the decisions.

[Marcus Brody]

The point is that curators are already influencing who gets to work in ‘their’ patch by advising applicants of contractors who have undertaken similar work.

Well they shouldn't be. Unless the Council is the developer, in which case it could be considered in-house advice, curators absolutely shouldn't be saying to developers that they should use a particular contractor over someone else, and I'd consider that doing so would amount to an anti-competitive practice. If I heard that a curator had been directing developers that they should use another company rather than putting work out to tender, I'd consider it a serious cause for complaint.

To be fair, however, that's not how I read tmsarch's comment - I took it more as an indication that she or he would personally consider previous work as an indication of future competence, rather than being that they'd recommend that to a developer that they should use a specific contractor.

[differentcolourmud]

P Prentice
[INDENT]....but ..who and why would anybody challange
[/INDENT]

not sure why you find it so hard to see who would challenge it. Any client with a preferred non-RO contractor, be it for reasons of price, previous working relationship, availability etc might object to being told they couldn't use them. The non-RO themselves might want to do it, particulalrly if it was a good/big job and they knew they would get the work but for this ruling. A few cheap letters threatening and then initiating legal action would soon see the council abandon its curators and roll over.

[kevin wooldridge]

.... this is clearly illustrated by the low membership of archaeologists, the low number of curators willing to take up the RO preference, and by the very fact we are having this discussion. Brushing it under the carpet will not get rid of the problems.

Oh so boring to repeat pat, an opinion as a a fact....!!

The IfA has 2800 members and 60 registered organisations. Recent estimates are that there c 5000 archaeologists active in the UK, probably a few less with the recession. IfA membership has to be close to if not exceeding 50% of its full potential. Where in any realm of imagination is that 'low' membership? Whether curators take up RAO status is one thing, but just about every curator I know of has a statement somewhere about their person that contractors will adhere to the IfA code of conduct. Seems to me most curators agree entirely with the committment to principles and ethics that RAOs make....

[tmsarch]

In the rush to polarise this debate into a ?for or against the IfA? question, it strikes me that we are missing the wood for the trees. The point is that curators are already influencing who gets to work in ?their? patch by advising applicants of contractors who have undertaken similar work:



Applicants, getting a whiff of life made easy, are likely to only seek quotes from the names provided by the curator. This sometimes works in our favour, sometimes not. As a barrier to entry it is opaque and open to bias. By ensuring that only RO?s can qualify for work, it is merely clarifying the selection process with recourse to an externally verifiable source. As a regulatory move it is not only fair, but also seen to be fair ? an essential prerequisite to a proper functioning competitive market.

We need to move much much further in this direction. Commercial archaeology?s problems are structural, and solutions therefore need to be found at that level.

In fairness I was answering a specific question from our host (Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch?) - my answer remains the same - I would honestly see previous successfully completed work as a better indicator of future competence than RO status.

A company might be a RO, but archaeology is a wide-ranging topic, not all ROs will be able to undertake all types of work. I wouldn't expect an RO who specialises in historic buildings to necessarily have the expertise to undertake goearchaeological investigations on complex Pleistocene sequences (they may have that ability, but I might ask for that to be demonstrated - CV, example of past work (doesn't need to be from my 'patch')).

Where I work we do not maintain any kind of approved list - indeed we are very rarely asked to provide such a thing. In my experience most developers already have an archaeological contractor on-board (usually someone they have successfully used in the past). There are occasions when we are asked to provide a list of contractors, our response is that we don't have such a list - if pushed I will provide contact details for a range of archaeological organisations who have previously completed similar works and are familiar with the archaeology of the area. It is always made absolutely clear that these contact details are provided for information purposes only, that they should not be considered to be council approved or recommended in any way. I will also provide them with links to the IfA's website as a source for alternative contacts. However as I think others have pointed out the IfA?s list isn't necessarily the easiest to navigate to the uninitiated.

Some pieces of work that we might require can be exceptionally specialised and there is sometimes a very limited pool of archaeologists who can or will undertake such work. Sometimes you will get a develop whose 'usual' archaeological contractor has declined to tender for a piece of work because they don't have the capabilities to do a specialised piece of work - very difficult for a developer to know where to go next. Archaeological contractors themselves often want me to provide them with contact details for specialist contractors that they can sub-in to undertake a specific aspect of a project.

The intention is not to restrict trade or dictate who works in an area - it is simply to be helpful. Not all developers (especially inexperienced/householders) know what an archaeologist does, how to find one, or where to start looking. People expect me as the county archaeological officer to provide them with this advice - and are usually surprised to find that we caveat information so heavily - I'm not trying to be a bureacratic busy-body, but sometimes in these situations you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

I am not trying to restrict trade, I'm not acting in league with archaeological contractors and I'm not part of an IfA pact. All I want to do is ensure that the archaeological resource that I have a responsibility for is managed correctly; that developers and archaeological contractors are clear about their requirements and that work is undertaken to an acceptable professional standard; and that specialists and the general public get to hear about and enjoy the archaeology of the area.

[Sparky]

Oh so boring to repeat pat, an opinion as a a fact....!!

The IfA has 2800 members and 60 registered organisations. Recent estimates are that there c 5000 archaeologists active in the UK, probably a few less with the recession. IfA membership has to be close to if not exceeding 50% of its full potential. Where in any realm of imagination is that 'low' membership? Whether curators take up RAO status is one thing, but just about every curator I know of has a statement somewhere about their person that contractors will adhere to the IfA code of conduct. Seems to me most curators agree entirely with the committment to principles and ethics that RAOs make....

Really Kevin. Recent estimate put the work-force of archaeologists at 5862, down from 6200 in 2010, and much less than 6900 in 2009. At 2800 members, IfA membership is 47.76%. A significant statistic indicating that membership of the IfA is in the minority.

Whether curators take up RAO status is the one thing I was precisely writing about, not the IfA code of conduct. If you read carefully, I wrote that the idealogy of the IfA is great. For your benefit, this includes the principles and ethics.

Please use your ability to bend meanings on the Time Travel thread. You may eventually bend light.

[Wax]

I am with Sparky on this I too went away and looked at the figures from the same sources. What ever way you want to look at it the IFA do not represent the majority of working archaeologists. It is clear that the guiding principal for curators is that archaeologists and archaeology units should have a proven track record above everything else. Currently councils who state that contractors working in their area need RO status are in the minority and a legal challenge to this is perfectly feasible. I am, like many here, not totally against the IFA but I do wonder at their agenda. The debate makes it clear that they seem to represent their own self perpetuation rather than better pay, working conditions etc for the front line archaeologists. Do the IFA recognise they have a problem with how they are perceived and if so how are they addressing it?

The perception that it is club for management from a particular range of companies is not good and does not inspire confidence if they cannot rid themselves of this image. ( I may added that I do not see them this way but I am aware that many people do and perhaps those people know better than me)