18th April 2007, 04:11 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes
Oh dear you're going to have the consultants hopping mad with that. They'll say (and I would agree to an extent) that they also give value to archaeological work, through enforcing standards and compliance with written schemes, briefs etc. So, HB perhaps the key to better wages is more and and better consultants too? I would still dispute the direct link between quality and price that you are pushing here. Just beacause something costs more doesn't mean it is of higher quality :face-huh:
But something of higher quality does cost more, unless someone finds a more efficient way of achiving a set standard, and in a competitive environment that balance tends to find itself naturally. The issue is obviously to make sure the standard is set.
As for consultants, they can sometimes make a small impact (on the market overall) if they have good standing with their client and a very good reason for avoiding a particular firm (due to past performance for instance), but ultimately their role is to facilitate planning consents for their client and making sure work gets past curators is part of that job.
And they still have to get things past curators; their interest in standards (economically remember! I am not implying that consultants do not care, but they cannot overrule their clients) can only extend as far as attaining that consent for the same market led reasons (i.e. if they do not do it, someone else will). If a consultant demands that more work occurs than is strictly necessary to achieve the discharge of a condition, they run the risk of falling foul of their client if they are found out (by looking at the level of work they are paying for in a similar but unrelated project, for instance).
don't panic!