Corporate archaeology: Is it the future or is it the past?

[Marcus Brody]

Unless big units enjoy significant economies of scale, they have no great competitive advantage.

Indeed, in a lot of cases, larger units will have a significant competitive disadvantage, particularly when tendering for small jobs. If your charge-out rate has to take into account the cost of maintaining a permanent office and store and sustaining a certain number of office-based specialist staff, etc, it can be very difficult to compete against someone working out of their back bedroom, who only has to cover costs for their own time.

[RedEarth]

so you think i'm in league with who exactly?

Sorry if my response was a bit negative, but I agree with some of the other comments - it seems to me at least that some of the larger companies are actually doing worse than some of the smaller, for various reasons. Your initial premise seemed to be based on a distinct lack of information, hence my comment. I'm sure you're not in league with anyone, well no-one of this world anyway... only joking!

[differentcolourmud]

Dinosaur
[INDENT] There's been a slightly suspicious outbreak of larger units generating lots of regional 'offices' recently to look like 'local' outfits

Good point. Its all going around in circles, eventually these new regional offices will be hived off or sold and we'll be back to where we started. Super units with regional offices aren't necessarily a bad thing though if it means that local staff and expertise can be kept in situ. And the small scale independents will always be able to pick up enough crumbs to keep going as long as theres an active curator slapping conditions on

Now, to get a conspiracy theory/sensible plan of action going (delete according to personal prejudice) can I suggest that the IFA should use all those hefty subs and start buying up units to create a mega-behemoth RAO. Then once theres only one unit left we can get chartered status and ban or buyout new startups, stop arguing about whether we should be IFA members or not, end competitive tendering and only work within 10 mins of home.

We could call it the Unitof1.

[/INDENT]

[vulpes]

We could call it the Unitof1.

I think you'll find that's copyrighted!

[kevin wooldridge]

Fortunately (from a historical perspective) Rescue carried out a survey in 1991 that has become a 'snapshot' of the industry at that point... those halcyon pre-commercial days!!. Rereading it, I note that the big players in 1991are pretty much (unsurprisngly) the big players 20 years later, a few names have changed, obviously a lot of then 'public' bodies have become more commercially based, but the outline of the industry is pretty recognisable. Like most of us over 20 years, the industy's waistline has expanded and there are now estimated to be twice as many participants involved compared to the peak of 1986 (although the report makes clear that peak was heightened by job creation schemes). Interestingly the report suggests in 1991 there were 137 organisations carrying out archaeological wrork in the UK and an undisclosed number of individuals (the 'circuit'). I wouldn't mind betting that the number of organisations active today is just about the same (A little survey I did 4 years ago for 'OutWage' suggested a peak of about 170 organisations in the UK and 20 or so in Ireland) ....

So my 'conspiracy' theory is this: for all the piss and wind generated on this forum and in other places, the structure of the industry doesn't seem to have changed very much at all in the 20 years since 'commercialisation' came in. Why would anyone have us believe otherwise?


PS Based on the 1991 figure of archaeologists employed, the IfA's current 2011 membership would account for 127% of all known speices.....therefore they are completely on track to take over the world, but it will just be 20 years later than you think. Which might only be expected from a bunch of archaeologists....!!



Bibliography The Structure and Funding of British Archaeology. The RESCUE Questionnaire 1990-91, by Paul Spoerry


I note that Paul's report is still available through Rescue price ?3.50 http://rescue-archaeology.org.uk/category/publications/

[Wax]

like it or not the current state of archaeology is dependent on the construction industry. In the current world economic crisis what are the forecasts for construction. It is difficult to grasp the wider picture so what is the feeling out there? Deregulation of planning will help construction but not archaeology.

[kevin wooldridge]

like it or not the current state of archaeology is dependent on the construction industry. In the current world economic crisis what are the forecasts for construction. It is difficult to grasp the wider picture so what is the feeling out there? Deregulation of planning will help construction but not archaeology.

I can see where you are coming from regarding deregulation of planning, but I am not so sure that it will help construction....experience tends to suggest that when groups or individuals get upset over environmental issues it actually becomes more difficult for construction to proceed. Having to unchain those crusties from the bulldozers every morning, obtain eviction notices for the sustainability camp etc etc. Sure new legislation might make the activities of construction companies legal, but it wouldn't necessarily make them acceptable. The government seems deaf to the trumpets that suggest regulation combined with consultation often eases difficult development through the planning process. But I think they underestimate the potential and strength of environmental protest. OK at the end of the day the house/road/nuclear power station will be built, but costs may spiral and really whilst they claim new rules will do away with red tape, what they really mean is they will reduce costs. If costs instead increase and public indignation is raised at the same time, where is the logic of changing the system.

I note that in 1991 it was estimated 48% of archaeology funding came from developers. I am guessing that something like a further 30% came from direct grants though local goverment (i.e premises and staffing costs for the old county and city unit system). Leaving 22% to be picked up from national government and other sources. Accepting that the 30% from local government has now been largely transferred to the 'private' sector, how does the proportion of national and other funding stand up in 2011? Would the proportion of EH, Historic Scotland, CADW, National Trusts, other statutory bodies funding still equal that of 1991?

[Marcus Brody]

And the small scale independents will always be able to pick up enough crumbs to keep going as long as theres an active curator slapping conditions on

If you're looking for a conspiracy, I'd say that this is it. There have been a number of stories recently about Councils shutting or downsizing their archaeology services and laying off staff, all under the guise of austerity or the need to streamline the planning process to facilitate a construction-led recovery. It's open to interpretation how much this is individual Councils reaching similar solutions when faced with similar problems and how much it's part of a campaign-by-stealth to remove archaeology from being a significant issue in the planning process, but in my opinion it's the single move with the potential to have the greatest impact on commercial archaeology and the number of archaeologists in the country.

I know Unitof1 disagrees with this, but my opinion is that if there were no curators asking for planning conditions, the number of archaeological interventions resulting from planning applications would fall off a cliff, as would the number of archaeologists and archaeology companies, while the amount of archaeology lost to development would increase. I know that people in the commercial sector who are threatened with job losses might say 'well, why should I be worried about a few cosseted Council desk-jockeys losing their gold-plated pensions when I'm about to be made redundant too', but this seems to me a very clear example where job cuts in the public sector will have a significant impact on employment in the private sector (and before any of the curators on here write back, I'm well aware that most Council pensions require a contribution from the individual, that the average pension is not particularly high, and that they can hardly be described as gold plated). I'm always concerned when I hear about Councils cutting their archaeology service because I think that it'll have a knock-on effect on the amount of work about.

[Jack]

Don't worry...........as soon as I find that crashed spaceship and tell the MOD that the wopping great pulse cannon on the front is still operational there'll be no end of job opportunities for archaeologists in the secret military xenoarchaeological unit.

Hmmmm.........have to think of a catchy name though...........how about 'The Farscape Project?'

[Wax]

there'll be no end of job opportunities for archaeologists in the secret military xenoarchaeological unit.

Hmmmm.........have to think of a catchy name though...........how about 'The Farscape Project?'

Sign me up for that! Where do I send a CV?

on a serious note I am with Marcus, the biggest threat to archaeology is the undermining of the Local Government Curatorial services. However well informed and motivated local archaeology groups can use some of the ideas encapsulated in "Localism Bill" to query and counteract some of the nonsense going on in local councils. The well informed public might be the only hope.

PS I thought Torchwood was the international Xenoarchaeology Unit?