Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
""Some examples: What if we required all field directors to drill techs on digging techniques AND relevant CRM laws and regulations. What if we expected all field directors to KNOW the laws, the proposal of the project, the purpose of the fieldwork. If PIs were forced to include the field directors' input while writing up proposals, estimating field time, etc. "
Anyone working on site here should see and have access to the written scheme of investigation, which includes all of the above. That's exactly about being an archaeologist. (I know it doesn't happen everywhere, but it is usually a requirement of the brief and I've certainly monitored it as a consultant).
They field unit I've previously jointly run involves the staff running the site with the costings and they also write up. And I didn't need a business course to tell me that the more effectively I run a site the more likely it was that I'd still have a job in a few years time (and my home come to that) and neither did any of the people I dug with. I also didn't need it to tell me that, if I trained my team and they felt valued and that they were developing their careers, that they would be more effective and also that staff retention would be less of an issue.
But, back to the initial point of this course. If nothing else, it's the principle that if you are responsible for the archaeology and for your own and your colleagues futures, it's a good idea to know how to run your business effectively. Otherwise, you don't sleep at night and you need a lot of hair dye from early on!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
"Anyone working on site here should see and have access to the written scheme of investigation, which includes all of the above. That's exactly about being an archaeologist. (I know it doesn't happen everywhere, but it is usually a requirement of the brief and I've certainly monitored it as a consultant)."
While we can all agree this should happen, I don't know of one case where it truly does. Maybe it's the difference btwn UK and US archaeology, but in both my personal experience and those of friends across multiple companies of all sizes, I've never known of a project where everyone (from techs to PIs) know all the laws and regs and have seen the scope of work. I know field directors and even low level PIs on large projects who have not seen the entire proposals. Nor has management been concerned about that fact. These are not isolated incidents.
The point I go back to is, no, you don't need an MBA to run a CRM company. But the way sloppy work is accepted and bad companies are allowed to stay in business because reg agencies just keep letting them go, my only hope is that maybe companies that do get their acts together and form a proper business model and run their company from a grounded business perspective (which allows them to see more profit) will be positioned to run bad companies out of business.
Sara
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Maybe it's just a question of different ways either side of the pond.
Although I'm sure many people here would recognise your description over mine too.
And I agree with some of what you've said. I used to have a rough rule of thumb that many organisations which were set up could last for around 3 years before going under. They would go under around that time, but in the meantime they'd dragged other organisations down!
Out of interest, do you have any sort of scheme like the IFAs RAO scheme? It's certainly not a perfect scheme, but at least it sets an initial baseline of business practice as well as archaeological practice.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
I think that you (rather they) are confusing management with business
The problem is that an archaeologist has to be an independent person and cannot fit with in a company structure. We work a subjective (for want of a better term) recording system. I would suggest that all decisions are made from a position of power (for want of a better term) or ownership (for want of a better term). The RAO is anti archaeologists. It puts responsibility in A management system by taking it away from archaeologists. It is a collective which can only produce one type of product and has to base it on a ridged standard, in the British examples it is civil servant proformas so for example the course being put forward will not have anything in it that Alan Sugar would recognise as anything to do with Business (like profit) but will be ace if you want to work at second level government. Look up Waloff Associates who are hosting with ifa at
http://www.lfig.org/study-groups/1_regeneration.htm
And find Nicholas Waloff
Nothing wrong with those credentials if that is where you think archaeology is
I just found my first (independently commercial) Roman kiln site. When I suggested that it should be named after me cause it would be good publicity- you should have seen the looks on the specialists faces. Maybe this Waloff has got something after all (other than your money)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
I like that idea! Posterity! Plus it would make anyone who wasn't writing up the sites really obvious!
And Mr Waloff doesn't have my money, I did my business and management training a long time ago and got quite enough of it then!
Not sure I agree with the anti-archaeologist point, if the management are also archaeologists, but I based on what you've said I assume you've been in contact with a lot of managers etc who aren't (although perhaps were). It is important to say that most of the RAO stuff is not about saying 'things must be done this way' but about saying 'you have to have thought about this and have come up with a statement of how you work which you can then be tested against, and that way of working has to be compatible with the codes of conduct and standard and guidance of the IFA'. (sorry, that was a bit long winded!) Becasue it is a quality assurance system, but no pair of organisations operates in the same way, let alone all of them!
All in all, and this applies to the course, the RAO scheme, the IFA, individual organisations and most other things in archaeology, very little is perfect or even well on the way to that, but I think it's better than nothing. I'm always happy to discuss alternatives though!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Presume little -Liberties -Where did I say I was going to write it up. I was also thinking of auctioning it off?
If managers are archaeologists ----is where it all falls down because you cant be both. The world is managers are bodies who exploit archaeolog-ists/y. And the ifa should protect archaeologists from being exploited not giving the hook, line and sinker to them who ever they might be
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
I don't agree that that's always the case, but I can think of quite a few managers it does apply to.
I didn't say you had said you'd write it up, I just said we'd know where to look if you didn't.....
As for auctioning it off, before or after it's excavated? After all, it's a destructive process.... I can just see you pointing me to the spoil tip!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
I cant think of one.
What I imagine is I have just dug the site. I have filled in all my context sheets and ordered my archive. I have started some analysis but really I am more general field craft than Roman pot or curator. Is there anything in the situation for me to manage in a business sense.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Only to get paid and fill in the tax forms.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Precisely
and what expenses would you go for on your tax form.
Advertising
Research and design
Entertainment
Living expenses
Capitol ?archive! depreciation
Motoring
Interest on loans
I dont think that theres a single piece of advice that the ifa has attempted to give about any of these issues for archaeologists. I doubt that the course would even come close.
