Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
31st October 2006, 08:40 PM
No need for apology Gizmo... I to think that it benefits nobody to have it go bust.. so we have to look for solutions.. not excuses.. thanks for your email and hope to hear from you soon.
Rant on!!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
1st November 2006, 02:33 PM
Orknyowot Quote:quote:I still think the whole problem lies within the tendering system, that I believe is what must change before we anything else change as this is where the root cause of all the pay arguments lie
Other industries operate in a competitive tendering environment, but still manage to pay professional rates - in fact, in the current environment, they often find themselves competing for staff by offering big raises. Competitive tendering is not just about price -it is also about showing that you have the right quality of staff to achieve the job. As someone who advises clients on tender assessment, I know that this is something that is taken into account in appointing archaeological contractors, at least on some jobs.
The job roles where it is most important to have good quality staff are in the permanent/semi-permanent core-staff jobs, and that is precisely where the unit in question seems to be under-paying. In the long run, that will undermine their ability to retain good quality staff in those jobs, and the quality of work they do will suffer. They will get trapped in a vicious circle where they can only compete on cost because they can't compete on quality; that will continue to depress what they pay, which will depress their quality, and so on ad infinitum. Ultimately, no-one will want to employ them and they will go bust, despite keeping their wages below industry minima.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
1st November 2006, 03:09 PM
Slightly off the main thrust of the thread perhaps, but I was interested in Mr 1desk's comment about assessing tenders, in part, on quality of staff.
Presumably competence and appropriateness (including staff) for the particular project are the major criteria for selecting contractors for the tender list in the first place, as one would in other industries, and is a requirement of the CDM process. It seems a bit late to check it out at tender assessment and could possibly leave one open to criticism.
Of course the case can arise where a firm has the appropriate staff but they are commmitted elsewhere, which you might not find out about pre-tender.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
1st November 2006, 06:44 PM
Posted by Invisible Man: Quote:quote resumably competence and appropriateness (including staff) for the particular project are the major criteria for selecting contractors for the tender list in the first place, as one would in other industries, and is a requirement of the CDM process. It seems a bit late to check it out at tender assessment and could possibly leave one open to criticism.
Two aspects to that, Mr Invisible.
Firstly, you might have several tenderers, all of whom put forward staff who meet or exceed the minimum requirements set in the spec - but one tender might propose staff who just barely meet the criteria, while another might put forward a top-notch team.
Secondly, you might know when selecting the tender list that a given unit has some good quality staff - but you don't know until you get the tender in exactly who will be on the team. Is it their best person, or their lame duck, or an individual who does not meet the criteria?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
1st November 2006, 07:04 PM
Quite. Point 1 relates somewhat to the discussion on minimum versus exemplary standards on another thread. To barely meet a standard is to meet it. The team you actually get is the luck of the draw, basically. But in selecting the tender list you will have arrived at contractors with a good track record, but I know from experience that a good firm might have one lousy site manager- probably new to the firm. Conversely a particularly good site manager can give a misleadingly good impression of a not so good firm. It's a tough life.
Point 2 - indeed, as I say you don't know the exact personnel. You may not know (in construction anyway) at the time of tender assessment. A firm may have tendered for several contracts and not know how many, if any, they will win and cannot always commit to naming individuals at that stage. It's a very tough life.
But my overall point is that a firm will tend to not be invited to tender if they are known to have a low standard of personnel, hence, in theory, will want to retain staff. I recognise of course that in archaeology this simplistic picture is distorted by the mobility described by others i.e it's harder to switch jobs if it means relocating, which is a lesser problem in other industries.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
1st November 2006, 09:43 PM
1 man 1 desk as you say other companies pay professional rates using the tedering system, are you suggesting that the rates of pay we get are at a professional level?
Define to me what competent profesional staff are required at a minimum level, I had to do only four weeks, yes I said four weeks, of field excavation to be considered fully trained in basic techniques, I did 9 months in total while at uni. Would four weeks make me competent right out of uni? Would you seriously consider me for employment or take on more experieced unless you where desperate for staff.
For example when a tender comes in do you know who the project manager is, the supervisor, all the field staff, who will be doing post-ex and the write up of the site?
You cant possibly know this and this means that you are going on repuation alone.
Educate me on this if I'm wrong.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2006, 09:48 AM
Just a quick querie regarding the citing of personel in tenders.
For the vast majority of tenders we only cite the names of all the PM's / PO's that are capable of doing a specific job but do not regularly supply CV's etc unless asked. To my knowledge in the past couple of years we have been asked once to supply CV's for a project at this stage and only a couple of times for them later on, this is despite undertaking several large long running projects with consultants etc involved.
My question is how common is it to collect this information prior to awarding a job (or indeed after for that matter)? From my experience it does not seem that common but is this a false impression?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
2nd November 2006, 01:41 PM
I see this more as a business issue than a professional standards issue. It's not entirely a 'fair employment' issue either.
Any contractor which has to compete against others to a specified set of professional standards will always be at a cost disadvantage when the competitors are larger. In order to compete effectively, they will need to rely on larger contractors either charging bloated prices or having a unique selling point (USP) of their own. In mainstream archaeology, it's hard to have a USP when the contract specification isn't one that allows a free hand to be creative. That's where the factors of customer service and value-added services come in.
If a body is struggling to meet the 'industry-standard' rates, then it actually needs help from staff (who love working for a small business and are generally more dedicated to the welfare of their firm) to brainstorm the approaches they take and come up with the goods that will persuade a client to pay the 11.4% higher cost of employing their firm.
Free adviceline for six months. A couple of extra tasks thrown in for nothing. Ready to go in under 24 hours. They're all adding value. They all give benefit to the client (who may or may not take advantage of them - a curator is not likely to need the background research material nicely presented, but a developer might find it useful in sales material etc; a developer may not need a couple of extra things thrown in for nothing - a curator with a tight budget might appreciate them).
I agree that a handful of large competing units is not a situation that's positive. People don't always like 'big' as employers, and it's easy not to innovate in a bigger setup.
In summary, I don't think the unit vaguely referred to (and I don't know who it is) should fail, but I do think the evil overlords of it need to address the viability of their marketplace. Under the present situation, they're starting a downward spiral in which they will potentially lose their better staff who drift off for salaries over and above the BAJR rate, they will subsequently fall short on the quality presently delivered which keeps them alive, and it's then only time before the work dries up entirely.
The good news is that the smaller the outfit, the easier it is to change and focus. Agreeing a roadmap to the future with staff so everyone pulls together can form the basis of the agreement - and if they're sticking to it, then surely a penalty will only harm the staff that industry-wide pay agreements are intended to help?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd November 2006, 02:10 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sniffer
Any contractor which has to compete against others to a specified set of professional standards will always be at a cost disadvantage when the competitors are larger.
Small organisations often have lower overheads, not higher ones as you suggest. Large organisations often survive not on efficiency but on market muscle, which is more a factor in questions like which pizza people buy than which archaeologist they hire. There are plenty of small archaelogical organisations doing quite nicely. That should be clear even without the benefit of roadmaps or three letter acronyms (TLAs).
PS mmm....pizza...
PPS I don't think anyone is advocating a 'penalty'.
'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
2nd November 2006, 02:22 PM
Posted by Orknyowot: Quote:quote:1 man 1 desk as you say other companies pay professional rates using the tedering system, are you suggesting that the rates of pay we get are at a professional level?
Not in the slightest - what I am saying is that the competitive tendering environment is no excuse for not paying professional rates.
Quote:quote efine to me what competent profesional staff are required at a minimum level, I had to do only four weeks, yes I said four weeks, of field excavation to be considered fully trained in basic techniques, I did 9 months in total while at uni. Would four weeks make me competent right out of uni? Would you seriously consider me for employment or take on more experieced unless you where desperate for staff.
For example when a tender comes in do you know who the project manager is, the supervisor, all the field staff, who will be doing post-ex and the write up of the site?
You cant possibly know this and this means that you are going on repuation alone.
When we invite tenders, our specification always asks for named individuals (with CV), for project managers, field officers and specialists, and sometimes for supervisors.
We specify minimum levels of qualification and experience for all staff roles, and the tenderer has to confirm that everyone meets the specified requirements.
If the information is not given, the tender is discarded. If it is inadequate, we go back and ask for more.
We also give preference to RAOs, and whether or not the contractor is an RAO we require that they adhere to IFA Code of Conduct, Standards and Guidance.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
|
