Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
2nd January 2007, 06:02 PM
And a happy new one to you too Mr Barnes! From a read of the doc kindly posted by Mr Hosty-it seems to be the case that the IFA have re-assured potential clients that the commissioning of services either from an RAO or, a full corporate Member of the IFA can be secured with confidence.I have to agree with you Mr Barnes, the IFA cannot possibly guarantee anything.But, the document seems to suggest otherwise.I would love to see an RAO scheme that works! Seriously,the IFA really needs to re-think this scheme or, its wording in the text of the document.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
2nd January 2007, 06:18 PM
Troll is right in that the wording certainly appears to provide some sort of promise that work commissioned from an RAO will be done to a satisfactory standard - perhaps the wording does needd to be revised before a legal challenge comes through from a disgruntled punter.
1m1d is also correct in that removal from the RAO scheme can be a useful sanction - as a consultant I usually look to recommend to clients that they use an RAO for any fieldwork that might be required. If a contractor has been de-registered then thay would not be considered, and even after managing to re-register there may well be some lingering perception of malpractice or p***-poor management that would mean said contractor would not be included on any invitation to tender.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
2nd January 2007, 06:47 PM
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:RAO status is either a guarantee or its not.If it has no legal standing
No professional association can provide a guarantee that any member or registered organisation will always behave themselves - all they can do is guarantee that the organisation has formally committed themselves to certain defined standards, and that the institution will take disciplinary action if the standards are breached.
The IFA don't say that the RAO scheme has any legal standing - it doesn't. Membership for individuals, or registration for organisations, is voluntary. It is not within the power of the IFA to change that.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd January 2007, 08:02 PM
Would that mean then that BAJR could also have a BRO (BAJR Recognised Orginisation) system, where we guarantee that organisations committed themselves to certain defined standards (such as the IFA standards) in writing. If they do not meet these standards, then the sanction of removal from the BRO scheme (or removal of advertising rights) could be taken. This would be based on a policed system whereby those that actually see the work (ie the DC Archaeologists) report whether or not there are breaches or exagerrations in competance in certain areas.
I don't want to do it.. as I feel it is the job of the IFA.... just playing devils advocate again.
With no legal standing, or formally recognised status .. BROs would be just as reasonable as a Quality Assurance as an RAO... and membership would be £100 a year...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd January 2007, 09:17 PM
RAOs have to carry PI insurance and thus the IFA is in a position to give a basic garantuee of quality.
I really cannot see anybody trying to sue the IFA when an organisation has PI insurance. I am sure that no other trade organisation worry about this. If the IFA was sued successfully all they would have to do is sue the firm.
It would be so messy I doubt anybody would bother.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
2nd January 2007, 09:17 PM
My understanding of RAO status is that it is a quality assurance scheme. This means that the organisation commits itself to following a laid-down set of procedures - in this case IFA guidance. However it is clearly a less-detailed set of procedures than have to be followed for a QA system such as ISO9000 where exact procedures are laid out and the system is auditable (if that is a word) through paperwork trails etc.
For County Mountie QA or whatever it would be called is also likely to attract bills from my employer to you to cover my time if they find out you are charging £100 a go to administer my work.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd January 2007, 09:54 PM
Does that mean then that if a company is an RAO we (as DCs) don't have to worry about checking their work... as the IFA have quality assuranced the company by giving it RAO status?
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
2nd January 2007, 11:24 PM
Whichever way we choose to look at this....tiz an obvious farce innit?:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
3rd January 2007, 02:11 PM
Dr Peter wrote:
'RAOs have to carry PI insurance and thus the IFA is in a position to give a basic garantuee of quality.
I really cannot see anybody trying to sue the IFA when an organisation has PI insurance. I am sure that no other trade organisation worry about this.'
By co-incidence, I was just reading about a couple who engaged the services of an architect to design their dream house in Scotland. They made all the right checks, found out that the architect was registered with the Arb (Architects Registration Board - motto = 'protecting the consumer and safeguarding the reputation of architects') and was also a member of RIAS (Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland).
Sadly the architect failed to deliver to the required quality and walked away suffering from some form of nervous breakdown leaving the couple £250K out of pocket. It turned out that he had previously been struck off by Arb for 10 years in 1990 after being convicted of defrauding an elderly neighbour out of £60K and was jailed for a year, only to be allowed back onto the Arb in 1993 ! The architect's insurers refused to pay out saying that the cover was not valid due to a 'serious non-disclosure' of the facts, i.e. not mentioning his previous conviction.
The couple complained to the Arb, who struck the guy off the register again but said that there was nothing more that they could do. Arb are now calling for a public debate on whether or not to amend the Architects Act to allow the right of redress, including the setting up of a central compensation fund, and establishing an independent ombudsman with the power to order architects to pay compensation
This could so easily happen in archaeology, where PI cover is assumed or certificates produced on request, but where cover may deemed to be invalid in some circumstances. What is interesting is that the couple clearly had no legal case for redress against the Arb or the RIAS.
The Arb call for a public debate has been backed by the National Consumer Council who said the the absence of any redress was concerning and that architects risked falling behind other professions such as medicine and legal services which were both belatedly pushing forward with consumer redress schemes.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd January 2007, 02:17 PM
It is easy to overestimate the powers of any QA system, and therefore to conclude that the RAO system doesn't work.
I work for a company that is not only an RAO, but also has a QA system certified by LRQA, an Environmental Management system certified to ISO 14001, and is certified as an Investor In People. All of these are essentially QA systems certified by third parties. I have regularly participated in external audits for all of these, including being inspected recently by the IFA.
No QA system or other 3rd-party certification scheme assures the technical quality of any organisation's work.
What they do is certify that the organisation has robust management procedures in place that meet the requirements of the scheme. The audit process (e.g. IFA inspections of an RAO) is meant to make them provide evidence that they not only have those procedures, but that they apply them to their work on a day-to-day basis.
So, for instance, if the procedure says that you will ensure that all of your sub-contractors are required to comply with IFA standards, they will review a sample of your Specs to ensure that this requirement is in there. They may also look at your monitoring procedures and records.
Having good procedures and applying them does improve the quality of your management and also makes it easier to trace back anything that goes wrong to its origin - but it does not ensure good technical quality. It is still down to internal checks and checks by the client to make sure that the technical quality is good.
These comments apply to all 3rd-party certification schemes, not just the IFA RAO scheme.
Having said that, some (not all) of the other schemes are more rigorous than the RAO system. On the other hand, they are also much more expensive to set up, operate and audit. I suspect, for example, that my company spends more each year on its QA scheme than the total income of many archaeological organisations. If the RAO scheme became that rigorous, I suspect it would quickly fold, because few if any organisations would be willing to spend that much.
Overall, companies are willing to spend the money on these schemes mainly because these certifications are frequently used by clients as pre-qualification criteria when they are compiling tender lists. So, no certification, no invitation to tender. If a requirement for RAO registration became normal practice for archaeological contracts, then every organisation that wanted to stay in business would have be registered, and the cost could easily be passed on to clients. Loss of registration (even for one year) would then be a really serious sanction, and the system would have much more teeth.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
