19th April 2007, 02:23 PM
This consultant is not hopping-mad about H-Bs comments as much of what has been said is true. Obviously I would consider that my role does result in added value, but equally I am also acting in my clients interest in achieving planning consent, discharge of conditions etc.
However, and I have said this before on the forum, the client's best interests usually lie in meeting programme deadlines rather than in reducing specific target costs attached to archaeological work, i.e. the actual costs of undertaking a piece of fieldwork do not really matter as long as the work is carried out within the agreed timescale and does not over-run. It is usually correct to say that the client is not particularly concerned about the quality of the fieldwork, and that most clients cannot tell if the quality is good or bad - that is why they employ consultants.
It is actually possible for consultants to play some part in raising standards). The production of a detailed and rigorous brief (either with or without a specification from the curator) should result in a reasonably level playing field for contractors to tender against. Although it is likely that the lowest bid will be successful, the quality standards should be fixed as these should be set out clearly in the brief.
The brief then forms part of the contract for the works - if the work is not up to the standard in the brief, then the contractor is in breach of contract and action can be taken (legal or otherwise) by the client or consultant - this is totally separate to the issue of enforcement (or lack thereof) by planning officers advised by curators. The consultant can monitor compliance with standards, as well as the curator.
However, none of this has any real effect on the matter under debate -pay levels within the contracting part of the profession - I would welcome suggestions on how consultants can assist in this.
Now that the IFA (along with ALGAO) has managed to produce a Standard and Guidance document for archaeological curators, perhaps we could look for one that is specifically for archaeological consultants. Failing that, I suppose that the next best move would be to establish a separate professional body for archaeological consultants that could produce its own standards and guidelines.
Beamo
BTW - Putt1ck - is there really such a thing as a chartered personnel manager, and do they have enforced standards for entry to the profession - I guess I must have just met the (non-chartered) inept ones.
However, and I have said this before on the forum, the client's best interests usually lie in meeting programme deadlines rather than in reducing specific target costs attached to archaeological work, i.e. the actual costs of undertaking a piece of fieldwork do not really matter as long as the work is carried out within the agreed timescale and does not over-run. It is usually correct to say that the client is not particularly concerned about the quality of the fieldwork, and that most clients cannot tell if the quality is good or bad - that is why they employ consultants.
It is actually possible for consultants to play some part in raising standards). The production of a detailed and rigorous brief (either with or without a specification from the curator) should result in a reasonably level playing field for contractors to tender against. Although it is likely that the lowest bid will be successful, the quality standards should be fixed as these should be set out clearly in the brief.
The brief then forms part of the contract for the works - if the work is not up to the standard in the brief, then the contractor is in breach of contract and action can be taken (legal or otherwise) by the client or consultant - this is totally separate to the issue of enforcement (or lack thereof) by planning officers advised by curators. The consultant can monitor compliance with standards, as well as the curator.
However, none of this has any real effect on the matter under debate -pay levels within the contracting part of the profession - I would welcome suggestions on how consultants can assist in this.
Now that the IFA (along with ALGAO) has managed to produce a Standard and Guidance document for archaeological curators, perhaps we could look for one that is specifically for archaeological consultants. Failing that, I suppose that the next best move would be to establish a separate professional body for archaeological consultants that could produce its own standards and guidelines.
Beamo
BTW - Putt1ck - is there really such a thing as a chartered personnel manager, and do they have enforced standards for entry to the profession - I guess I must have just met the (non-chartered) inept ones.