Martin Locock Wrote:... perhaps because the RO scheme is the only standard accreditation developed for British archaeology?
(It's worth pointing out that arcaheological appliactiosn of generic quality accreditation such as ISO9000 would almost certainly make prominent references to IfA membership, CPD, and the IfA standards and codes)
There is a risk of a growing misunderstanding.
There are a number of UK archaeological services accredited to ISO9000 QA schemes operated by various accredited certification bodies. These schemes support management processes across all aspects of industry and commerce, but they are not generic. They are designed around the needs of the organisation and comprise detailed management processes and quality standards pertinent to the range of services offered. These are set out in detailed company quality manuals that reference professional standards and codes of conduct, such as those offered by the IfA or IHBC for the conservation profession. Compliance requires formal recording of all project data, including the completion of project documentation files detailing the performance of the project, including documentation demonstrating that regulatory and professional requirements have been satisfied. These are subject to internal technical review by appropriately qualified professionals and to external auditing by qualified and experienced quality management professionals. Both the technical reviews and external audits ensure standards are adhered to and identify measures to continually improve quality. This form of QA is a proven means of securing quality business management across all sectors in the UK.
Apart from not being generic, as is claimed, none I have worked with include RO status as a mandatory requirement....there simply is no need, given that the IfA standards apply and failure to comply is a potential disciplinary matter...with the ultimate sanction being dismissal. But what I would like to understand is:
1. What is different about the archaeology profession that justifies its own separate QA accreditation process ?
2. Does the RO scheme offer anything similar in comparison ?
3. Why is the IfA not promoting QA systems via accredited certification bodies, ie support those qualified and themselves accredited as suitable to run such schemes ?
These are simple questions. Until I hear a convincing explanation on those points I remain avowedly against barriers to entry based on the RO scheme. Each attempt to promote such an agenda.....now mascerading as standards for the curatiorial section, latterly in the self-appointed Southport Group's reinterpretation of PPS5, and previously through off-record discussions dismissed by officials drafting PPS5, simply appears to subvert the interest of organisations who do invest in industry standard quality management systems, for the benefit of organisations who reject externally audited and rigourous management processes as an impediment in their attempt to get ahead in the race to the bottom.
The IfA is a membership organisation. It could base accreditation on individual membership, as do other professional conservation bodies, eg ICON Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers, a practice I could support. It doesn't, so adding to the failings of the RO scheme, by disadvantaging those those members who are not employed by a RO. This is simply unfair.
