Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger

[BAJR]

The case for merger is a compelling one. Quite apart from the existing range of benefits IfA offers to its individual members, we fee1 that both parties would benefit professionally. IfA would gain the core constituency of active graphics professionals; we in turn would be better placed to participate in the direction of the whole profession -and better placed to represent illustrators and surveyors within it.

says the letter to the AAI&S members.



WEll fair enough... but I have yet to hear a sausage about the compelling case. -- the range of benefits for IfA are not exactly show stoppers for me... it is more about being a MiFA or PiFA


remember..

As a professional body, one of the main aims of the AAI&S is to set standards within the profession and to promote these standards within the archaeological world at large. The Association's membership reflects the wide range of specialist skills and disciplines which are required from today's professional Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors.

How it can continue to do that ... well actually it won't continue to do that... it won't exist any more... there will be a Special Interest Group for Illustrators. if thats what people want... then fine... if the same amount of conference, help, technical papers, magazine space, webspace etc is allocated to the Illustrators SIG... or does that become less?

we in turn would be better placed to participate in the direction of the whole profession

well no more than you are now... indeed absolutely no change whatsoever.. apart from there would no longer be a AAI&S.


It was my recollection that already a MAAIS was treated as a MiFA and that a memorandum of understanding existed between the two separate groups. (though here I can be happily corrected! )


So... until I see the compelling argument... I can't really say I see one at the moment.

[ArcServ]

Its disappointing that there has been very little debate on this and an apparent lack of interest, as its important to the future of both members and the profession. Important to any organisation today is financial management and a website. The website is the window to the world and how members and the profession are informed. Much has been said about AAI&S representing the interests of members to the profession, clients etc. There have been significant recent changes to legislation/guidelines that impact on members but neither AAI&S or ISSIG made any representation even when this was requested by IfA. These matters seem to have suffered from lack of commitment and its difficult to understand how this was allowed to happen. Important therefore is to consider if these and similar problems would be resolved with a merger.
In my opinion the basic criteria for an organisation (be it independent AAI&S, ISSIG or merger) is to represent the interests of Illustrators and Surveyors to the archaeological profession, clients and authorities. In parallel communicate the requirements of archaeology, clients and authorities to members as regards standards, methods and legislation etc. It is not clear to me if or how the currently proposed merger would achieve these objectives. The proposal seems to be that the ISSIG either as it is or similar, takes over the role of AAI&S, which then fades away. The ISSIG was formed, some time ago, to be a vehicle of communication and involvement to achieve the above objectives but has not done so. Whilst I understand the arguments for IfA handling administration, this has a cost, IFA is a registered business with paid staff and overheads, which takes most of the subscription with very little spare. There has been much talk about the merger/ISSIG doing many things such as separate conferences and similar, with the IFA paying, I doubt this very much. IFA rules state that interest groups are not allowed to charge for membership but may raise money for specific purposes. IFA rates are already high to pay for the administration etc., I suggest the chance of raising further money to be dubious, so where does the money come from to do all the things promised. As I understand it, currently the majority of ISSIG members are not from AAI&S but IfA. It seems likely that an ISSIG dominated by the IfA and run as it is now, would not achieve the objectives as above.
This is not to say that a merger with a semi independent group within IfA, representing the interests of Illustrators and Surveyors, having active management, the commitment, structure and ability to make representation both within and without the IfA, might not be of benefit. However as has been shown, to be successful would require radical restructuring of the ISSIG or similar. This important aspect is not at the moment clear from the proposals. AAI&S is not exactly ICI but a small members organisation. It occurs to me that the radical restructuring required to make a merger work, is more or less the same as needed for AAI&S to continue. I suggest it is important that members are informed as to what restructuring is required, to resolve the problems of merger or for AAI&S to continue as independent. At the moment the only proposal is to merge, I think its important that members are sufficiently informed so as to be able to make a choice. A matter that is clouding the debate is the proposal to grant MIFA to MAAIS, the issue is what is best for Illustrators and Surveyors not personal advantage to a few.

[Anthemis cotula]

AAI&SIFA

IFAAAI&S

IF&SIAAA

Consonant please Carol

they don’t use two of the AAAs

A&IFIS


There was also talk in the past (and at least one vote) to annex the AEA

[BAJR]

Thanks for that update and view. Colin.. one that I agree with as the benefits seem to be vague, while the negatives seem very tangible, however, it will take some effort from AAI&S members (myself included) to remain independent and focussed on Illustration and Survey

AS to me becoming a MIFA again, by default... I have a number of issues with that... one being that I resigned from the IfA so I would not be overly chuffed at finding myself back in again... second, the selection criteria from the AAI&S was much more demanding that MIfA - and the MiFA term is too broad... what / who does it represent... a MiFA osteologist would perhaps not be good at illustration, neither a MiFA illustrator make all that good a job at bone analysis... a MAAI&S is a mark of proven and verified ability in just that! As you say, the requirements for the original MIFA are very specific... designed for Project Management, they are now too broad and blurred to mean anything specific

anyway, I do hope more people comment ...

[Jack]

In a perfect world.......a profesional institute would be like this .....

"....... a non profit making professional body with a rapidly growing membership of over 12,000 and a global reach that extends through 39 international branches. Licensed by the Engineering Council, the IFE upholds professional standards within all public and private fire sectors by offering assessment of knowledge, experience and development and engages with major stakeholders to offer international conferences, identify and promote good practice and enhance technical networks worldwide.

The IFE provides professional recognition for members across a broad spectrum and has achieved recognition from a number of professional bodies including Ofqual. Under its Engineering Council licence, the IFE is authorised to register suitably qualified members as Chartered Engineers (CEng), Incorporated Engineers (IEng) and Engineering Technicians (Eng Tech)."
-http://www.ife.org.uk/

Not sure the IFA stands up to this standard, and in an assement by a fictional institue of institutes would fail to qualify as a RI (registered institute) :face-stir:


Or am I wrong?

[BAJR]

An organisation would do for a start

[kevin wooldridge]

If IFE has a worldwide membership of 12,000 compared to how many active engineers there are in the world, that is pathetic!!.....I can't find a figure for world 'engineer numbers but the US claims to have 1.5 million alone. If all the 12,000 members of IFE were American that would equal less than 1% of the total of just US engineeers. (An equivalant percentage membership for the IfA compared to the UK archaeological community would be about 60 members!!) Its kind of hard to see how a body representing a profession of 6000 persons in total (IfA figure) can aspire to a membership larger than the sum total...so maybe Jack unfair to compare like with unlike...

[Unitof1]

I am sure that once the ifas have taken over and got rid of the aai&sers that they will set their new enforced converts to drawing up plans for future world domination

(along with standards and guidence requiring that people who work for the civil service must approve all schemes of works that have to be produced before anybody dare think about drawing anything that the public think is old).

[Dinosaur]

Sounds like the IFE's ripe for a take-over by us archaeologists, there should be enough non-IFA members, then it would be the largest organisation representing British archaeologists, not IFA :face-approve:

[Jack]

The IFE is the institute of Fire engineers. I'm not 100% sure of the requiremnets of joining, but to progress you have to sit tough exams.