Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
"because the curators and planning departments won't set and stick to standards in pre-qualification. "
Can we get a level of reality here please????? On what planet do you imagine that curators can demand standards in pre-qualification. Do you really believe that planning departments even check the qualification of structural engineers, architect, whether developers are suitable people to be doing the work in their district or even whether the bunch of Albanians (I have nothing against Albanians I am just using them as an example this could equally read any other collective noun) laying the foundations have any clue what they are doing?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Forgive me, I'm new to archaeology - I had asusmed it was the planning departments and curators who set standards. Educate me.
So if planning departments and curators are not setting the standards for qualification (in regards to the archaeology) who is? At the tender stage it is construction firms who choose the language for the archaeological excavation requirements? The civil engineers who decide what condition an archaeological archive must be in for deposit? And does anyone check the contracted archaeologists actually do deposit?
In any line of business, those who set and enforce the standards have effective control over the quality of the work - the higher the quality of the work required, the higher the pay that can be demanded. So how to raise the standards?
Chris
------
Strictly my views, which occasionally may also be those of my employer!
------
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
This may need another thread.. but its such a good and interesting diversion (and in a way connected with the topic) lets run with it... I am muffling my voice just now, after talking about jsut these things - I would love to see the answers and questions this raises.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
12th April 2007, 09:57 PM
I have said it once and I'll say it again: curators hold the key to these professional issues as they are the agents that regulate the market and ensure everyone is costing to the same quantity and quality of work. This ensures that competitive costs represent real efficiencies and not a reliance on doing less.
putt1ck - I think you are broadly correct in your assessment but I have to say I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that curators "won't" enforce standards; it is largely the case that they can't due to a lack of resources and enforcement powers. That is a matter which needs dealing with in terms of the government making appropriate provision for archaeological officers a statutory requirement supported by funding - something the recent Heritage Paper is mostly silent on. This will become a more pressing issue as Government spending starts to dry up (in real terms) over the next five years; we shall soon begin to see which counties have a real commitment to archaeology. :face-huh:
don't panic!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
13th April 2007, 11:05 AM
I agree with hurting-back, it is disingenous to say that curators won't enforce standards as they do the best possible with the tools to hand. Legislation is the key and whereas the White Paper will provide a sensible approach to heritage management, making the system efficient and transparent for me doesn't really go far enough. It would be churlish, however, to argue against the undoubted improvements the White Paper's recommendations will bring.
Slowly, Slowly, Catchy Monkey
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th April 2007, 11:40 AM
The White Paper is a bit of a red herring in this thread really as any benefits it brings will have little effect on field archaeology and field archaeologists. A beefed up PPG16 may, if indeed that is what we get - rather than a watered down - streamlined PPS that serves a developers agenda. It is true that curators police standards on the ground and also true that our powers are limited in this respect - that said enforcement action is not a complete rarity in the region in which I work. Developers and consultants also seem to be realising that cheap ain't necessarily always that cheerful when planners are unwilling to discharge conditions due to shoddy or incomplete work. However Hurting Back your comments that curators hold the key to costing is only a half truth - in so far as there is a link between the price of something and its quality. However, it is not our role to comment on cost, only content and compliance. As such we cannot and should not be seen to 'regulate the market'.
Not really a 'pot person'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
13th April 2007, 02:21 PM
You don't regulate the market by regulating prices as it doesn't work (as the Soviets demonstrated), you regulate it by determining that a certain amount of work must be done to a certain quality "or else" which provides a baseline measure of work which in turn stabalises prices to an extent; there will still be variation, particularly in mitigation as the quantity of archaeology is often not clear even after evaluation.
This is the equivilant to building regulations in that it is simply a mechanism to ensure that work is done to a certain standard which has an indirect, but significant effect on the market value of the work involved. However as I have said before, archaeological officers need more resources to do this than other professions as badly done archaeological work is not as obvious as a badly built house.
Hence - "This ensures that competitive costs represent real efficiencies and not a reliance on doing less." - does not imply that curators should have any thing to do with costs at all; it's none of their business. I was simply stating that if curators had enough resources and confidence of backing from their employers (Councils) to be fearless in enforcement and more rigorous in checking (I am not implying that curators don't try, but I am yet to find one that has said 'yep, couldn't possibly want any more resources, I get to check all my sites as vigorously as I like and I have all the time in world to read over every report in minute detail!), it would have a significant effect on costs across the market.
don't panic!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th April 2007, 02:53 PM
Quote:quote:I am yet to find one that has said 'yep, couldn't possibly want any more resources, I get to check all my sites as vigorously as I like and I have all the time in world to read over every report in minute detail!
To be fair you never will either. Then again you could ask that of any local government worker and get a similar response. However, I think you are over-stressing the correlation here. If there were two people doing my job i really doubt that wages for archaeological contractors would go up significantly as a result of our super vigilance. Interesting blind alley though. Good day.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
13th April 2007, 03:28 PM
Well resources would help in some ways. I have just got through a 3-week period where I had six sites running at the same time. My performance notes state I should monitor each site twice a week. Together with travelling time that about half the week gone and leaves very little time for all the other work we are meant to cover.
The opportunities for a curator to directly enforce standards are:
initial response to planning application/ pre-determination consultation
writing the brief
checking the WSI
monitoring visits to the site
checking the report
discharging the archaeological condition and confirming funds are in place for archive/ publication
If work is being undertaken pre-determination then this does limit the opportunities to maintain standards. Previously I have refused to 'see' an evaluation report as I could not find any records of a WSI being agreed in my predecessor's paperwork and the unit in question was unable to supply any written evidence. I was only able to do this with the support of the planner and I was able to make the developer, with a new unit, reopen the trenches under condition.
The question of maintaining standards through a list of contractors is one that has come up a number of times. For the vast majority of significant sites in my county the developer comes along with a unit or consultant already attached to the project. Having an approved list would only impact on the smaller schemes. The RAO scheme does mean that you can explain what it means to developers and if they come along with an organisation that has been unable to maintain their registration you can explain to the developer what this means.
If you want to improve standards as a means to increasing the professionalism of the archaeological world and this then impacting upon pay then the IFA really is the only game in town. The RAO scheme, and organisations being removed from it enables curators to be able to say âorganisation X is not up to the job because they cannot maintain their RAO registrationâ.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th April 2007, 03:38 PM
If you want to improve standards as a means to increasing the professionalism of the archaeological world and this then impacting upon pay then the IFA really is the only game in town. The RAO scheme, and organisations being removed from it enables curators to be able to say âorganisation X is not up to the job because they cannot maintain their RAO registrationâ.
tending towards this... though then it would need increased investment in time and money to both ensure standards (ie make sure people are training when they say they are OR the standard of work meets the requirements - at the time rather than afterwards)
There is protection in both directions... and I would hope this could be an incentive... policed and enforced.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
