standards anyone?

[BAJR]

Or of course there is this list of unregulated mayhem
http://www.bajr.org/RACSmap/default.asp

Want to find a contractor? Want it local? need one to carry out a watching brief? look no further.

[deadlylampshade]

I wrote something very long and allegedly erudite and my computer crashed. Perhaps archaeology wasn't ready for it...

[BAJR]

sorry (and welcome stranger) you lost me there?

watched the video and all seemed fine. the comment on the video is clearly a nasty piece from a person who has an axe to grind a chip on a shoulder and has problems.

back to the topic. and sorry I got rid of the video link as it was not relevant.

[deadlylampshade]

Lost me too - and I agree with Hosty. Unnecessary post and unnecessary comments!

What my long, lost post DID say was that the advantage of ITIL was that it was adhered to by all sections of the IT industry not necessarily just the services and what archaeology needs is a similar all embracing, REPUTABLE, agency to produce a set of standards we can all at least TRY to adhere to without prejudice. I get the feeling that anything produced by IfA, EH et all would just get scoffed at...

Over to you Hosty:face-approve:

[Kel]

the advantage of ITIL was that it was adhered to by all sections of the IT industry not necessarily just the services

ITIL is about IT service management. Not all sections of the industry adhere to it - it's voluntary. Not everyone in the IT industry follows ITIL. Some companies use ITIL, some have in-house standards, some have none at all. ITIL is voluntary and in *some* areas of business it can give you a competitive edge. But it very much depends on what the client is looking for. If having ITIL accreditation looks like it'll cost you ?xx thousand more, then many clients will opt for the cheaper services without the ITIL logo attached.

Standards cost, at every stage. Training, accreditation, service provision, service purchase... I'd love to see something like that in archaeology - but who's going to pay? Essentially, the good practitioners will just be adding a financial overhead to a contract to cover their compliance costs, as they'll already be doing the work to that high standard anyway. No client's going to wear that. They probably wouldn't have before and they certainly won't in the current climate. Less rigorous practitioners won't be bothered about standards, and if their clients aren't bothered about standards now, then they aren't going to be unless a third party does a miraculous sales job.

Also, I've never known ITIL withdraw accreditation from a non-compliant organisation, which claimed to be following ITIL but wasn't. If you're looking for a way of policing archaeology and enforcing good practice, ITIL isn't a good model anyway. It just shows that you've been trained on how to deliver good service - it's not a cast-iron guarantee that you will actually deliver it. Which means I've argued myself round in a big circle and disappeared up my own posthole.

Try this instead, if you really can't sleep tonight: http://www.itil-officialsite.com/AboutIT...sITIL.aspx

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my hideous career flashback down the pub until it wears off.

[deadlylampshade]

ITIL is about IT service management. Not all sections of the industry adhere to it - it's voluntary. Not everyone in the IT industry follows ITIL. Some companies use ITIL, some have in-house standards, some have none at all. ITIL is voluntary and in *some* areas of business it can give you a competitive edge. But it very much depends on what the client is looking for. If having ITIL accreditation looks like it'll cost you ?xx thousand more, then many clients will opt for the cheaper services without the ITIL logo attached.

Any set of standards will be circumvented by those who don't like it/don't like the "overhead". With ITIL everyone knows what they are getting - that was the point I was trying to make. And I know it is about service management but it is just as applicable to other areas of IT which means it is flexible and therefore WORKS for those that use it.

Standards cost, at every stage. Training, accreditation, service provision, service purchase... I'd love to see something like that in archaeology - but who's going to pay? Essentially, the good practitioners will just be adding a financial overhead to a contract to cover their compliance costs, as they'll already be doing the work to that high standard anyway. No client's going to wear that. They probably wouldn't have before and they certainly won't in the current climate. Less rigorous practitioners won't be bothered about standards, and if their clients aren't bothered about standards now, then they aren't going to be unless a third party does a miraculous sales job.

Why does it have to cost? Cost free is possible if it is voluntary (as ITIL is) and the client will know what to expect from a company (of whatever industry) if the standard is accepted widely and used.

Also, I've never known ITIL withdraw accreditation from a non-compliant organisation, which claimed to be following ITIL but wasn't. If you're looking for a way of policing archaeology and enforcing good practice, ITIL isn't a good model anyway .

I wasn't ITIL accredited but those in the industry knew the levels of service I provided becasue they knew what ITIL was; and it is a good model because...

It just shows that you've been trained on how to deliver good service - it's not a cast-iron guarantee that you will actually deliver it. Which means I've argued myself round in a big circle and disappeared up my own posthole.

See you in the bar...:face-stir:

[Wax]

Very informative posts from the curatorial types, so if I have understood correctly in developer lead archaeology, development control/county archaeologists advise the planning officer who then sets the archaeological conditions. He/she is then advised by the development control/county archaeologist as to whether the work is up to scratch or not. It is then the responsibility of the Planning officer and the local councils to decide what to do about it? Seems the archaeologist have very little power as such so what is happening in areas where there are no county archaeologists or development control archaeologists, Merseyside for instance? Seems to me that standards might be the least of our worries at the moment:0

Also who monitors academic and community excavations? I take that at the moment unless the site is protected by law any one, with the landowners permission, can excavate any where. Does Valetta have some thing to say about this? I suppose if it is on a large enough scale an excavation will need planning permission?

I think a licence for those who can prove the required skills set is the way forward.

[BAJR]

That is a perfect summary. Advice.. that is the power of the Curatorial staff... it actually is implemented by Planning. With whom they have to have a good relationship. Non development excavations are unregulated, other than if they are so big they can be classed as 'development' - ie a big enough hole!

A good project will subject itself to scrutiny and monitoring, whether it has to or not. AND keep the local curatorial staff involved. PLUS produce reports and archives that are of a suitable standard.

oh oh... back to suitable standards again?

[Marcus Brody]

It is then the responsibility of the Planning officer and the local councils to decide what to do about it? Seems the archaeologist have very little power

That's also my understanding of the system. I know someone who works as a Council archaeologist, and he said that one of the most frustrating aspects of the job is that even when the developer has blatantly ignored an archaeological condition, it's very difficult to get the Council to take any enforcement action. It's very easy to criticise curatorial archaeologists, but it's important to remember that in most cases, they only act as advisors to the planning department. In most cases, they have no direct power themselves to take enforcement action against a developer, they can only advise the planner that action should be taken. If the planner (or councillors on the planning committee) decide to ignore that advice, there's very little the curatorial archaeologist can do.

Also who monitors academic and community excavations? I take that at the moment unless the site is protected by law any one, with the landowners permission, can excavate any where.

Again, that's also my understanding. While the Council archaeologist may visit community or academic excavations, they don't have any power to specify that work should be done in a certain way or to a certain level, as their remit usually only relates to work undertaken as part of the planning system. Indeed, according to my tame curatorial mole, in a lot of cases the Council archaeologist won't even be told that the work is going on (academics are apparently particularly bad in this regard). What I would say is that the number of academic or community excavations is tiny compared to the huge amount of commercial work that goes on, even in the current economic situation, and the vast majority of these will be conducted to a standard that is as good as, if not better than, commercial sites. On that basis, I'd say that it would be better to concentrate on improving standards in the more regulated and more numerous commercial sector first.

[kevin wooldridge]

.... While the Council archaeologist may visit community or academic excavations, they don't have any power to specify that work should be done in a certain way or to a certain level, as their remit usually only relates to work undertaken as part of the planning system.

Whilst this is true, one would assume that a 'Council archaeologist' visiting an excavation that falls outside of their employment brief, is doing so first and foremost as an archaeologist with an interest in the project and not as a individual frustrated that his or her sphere of influence is too limited to have a direct influence on the project strategy.

I'm not so sure that academics who don't inform someone they don't need to inform about an activity with which that person has no involvement necessarily makes the academic a 'bad' person .... Even in a country such as Norway which enjoys much more positive heritage legislation than the UK, there is no requirement on the regulated excavation museums to inform the 'Council archaeologist' of their comings and goings in any particular area or over any specific project.....by the time the excavation comes about the role of the 'Council archaeologist' has finished. I would suggest that the same applies in UK law. By the time an excavation or monitoring resulting from a planning condition comes about, any legal remedy resulting from such work is the responsibility of planning 'enforcement' and not planning advice....