Return to the bad old days.

[mercenary]

quote:Well, in the specs we put out to tender, we usually specify minimum levels of experience and qualification for every role on site, including diggers, and for key roles we require documentary evidence in the form of CVs.

We have for some years used quality-based criteria before we will include any unit on a tender list. Nowadays we give preference to IFA RAOs. We do tend to stick with a limited number of units in any given region, on the basis that we have experience of them and know they do a good job. We have stopped including some units in the tender list on the basis of poor archaeological quality, but never for price reasons.





These comments (on another thread) are an extremely promising development, and one that I hope will become universal. I am however, having trouble reconciling them with local developments where a formerly well respected unit has taken to staffing projects almost entirely with students, retired amateurs, and graduates of its own training dig. This may be partly because the professionals in the region quickly find better pay and conditions elsewhere, and the unit finds it difficult to recruit. Which is as it should be.

The real kicker though is that the unit in question is an RAO and the Director is the Chair of SCAUM. This leaves me less than optimistic about initiatives on pay/conditions and increasing the professionalism of the industry that involve either the IFA or SCAUM.

Units like this need to be held to account. :(

[1man1desk]

The IFA does have rules about this - if you think they have been broken, and you have evidence, then report the unit. They have recently shown willingness to discipline RAOs, but they need a complaint and evidence first.

On the specifics you mention (and assuming that the digs in question are commercially-commissioned work) -

Students: some use of students is probably ok, as long as they are a small proportion of the workforce (say, no more than 10%); are supplementary to a workforce that would be adequate without them; are paid; and are not employed in term-time.

Retired amateurs: Again, some use of such people is ok - they often have lots of experience. However, they must be employed, not working as volunteers. They will often be slow and painstaking, which is good for the archaeology but might mean that they are not very cost effective (assuming they are paid).

Graduates of their own training dig: Can't see any problem with that - these are young diggers setting out on a professional career, why should they be banned from working for a unit that provided some of their training?

Overall: Any of the above categories are ok in their place, but if a site is staffed entirely with these kinds of staff, the team will be very unbalanced. They may be cheap but they will probably also be slow, and without sufficient skill overall.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Mercenary, thank you for posting this. I`m afraid that I can`t offer an opinion yet. As I feel my balaklava sneaking out of it`s drawer and, my stomach about to press eject, I will have to go and have a very, very, long smoke first.1man1desk, make your mind up sir-either you specify professionalism across the board or, make fawning allowences for this sort of sh*t simply because big boys names are on the project......}:)

[mercenary]

1man1desk

I agree with your assessment of the abilities of each of these types of excavator, who well supervised and in small numbers can be an asset to any team. As the majority of a team in a commercial project it's a problem. You hint that they would be slow and presumably a commercial liability to the unit. Well, I can only imagine that being true if the overworked curator catches them out (which doesn't seem to ever happen) or other consultants, like your good self, get very strict about skill levels .

These projects are not being done by experienced teams by anyone's reckoning. Having said that, I'd normally just grumble into my pint cuz crap units often try this cost cutting measure.

What really riles me is the RAO and SCAUM connections. So I'm going to have to do some research and see what the IFA says. On the SCAUM connection this individual spoke at TAG last year in a session about training, and despite representing unit managers said nothing about his own unit, and disappeared before anyone could ask him any difficult questions during the scheduled discussion. GRRR...

[sniper]

well, we use a lot of volunteers to do post-excavation work that would otherwise not get done, and it is sometimes surprising what experience and skills this people bring to work. A former dentist was most helpful when I had any teeth questions for my analyses.

However, we do not use students as excavation staff, and I know of at least one commercial unit that does, and have subsequently trashed their way through sites because people just didn't recognise what was in front of their faces. The name of the unit has now become my way of describing hacked about skeletons.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Reggie]

"Professional" is both a term for someone who gets paid to do a job (but may do it badly) and a term for a required competence or attitude in the workplace. You can do a job in a professional manner without getting paid and you can get paid to do something and do it unprofessionally. To imply that students etc are unprofessional is plain daft.

As far as Mercenary's comments are concerned AFAIK a particular unit did employ a number people in the stated categories for a 2 week dig this summer. It was quite an unusual project (for reasons I am unable to divulge here) and not developer led. Experience levels amongst those staff ranged from a couple of months to several years experience but in addition there was appropriate supervision from very experienced permanent unit staff.

(Would this not be a fairly normal situation in any workplace, with a number of lesser experienced staff as well as a number with more experience, plus those with loads of experience??)

On the dig in question all the 'casual' staff were paid IFA agreed rates (including holiday pay) and were given appropriate contracts with a start and end date. The work was carried out in a professional manner to professional standards. The casual staff employed were happy (and grateful!) to have a couple of weeks work to enhance their experience and CVs for future employment in the archaeology profession. For a circuit digger it may not have been worthwhile to take the 2 week contract, knowing there would not be further work on offer afterwards.

Can it really be considered to be some "sort of sh*t" ??

On the subject of graduates from training excavations - seems like good practice to me to employ such people. They will work to your methods and standards and with personal knowledge of them, you are not just working off words on a CV. If you know they are crap you won't give them the job but if you know they are good you want to have them work for you in the future. You have invested time in them (and they may have invested considerable sums of money in the unit), so make it worthwhile for both parties and give them what might be their first break in 'professional' archaeology !

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everything is rosy and perfect at this unit but let's not look for more demons than there really are!

[mercenary]

Reggie,

Sounds to me like a different project to the ones I'm familiar with. Don't get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against the categories of excavator mentioned (Except maybe a retiree who is doing paid archaeology for fun and possibly taking away a post from a professional, but that's a different issue).

What dismays me is the decline in average skill/experience level. Units who do this are taking a very big step back into the past before the industry was forced to become professional.

The IFA code of conduct simply says that every team member should be qualified and experienced enough to fulfill their role, which is a bit vague and completely subjective. Gone are the days however, when supervision by a very experienced staff member could make up for a low experience level overall. For all the good archaeologists it produced I reckon the archaeology suffered a bit under the MSC scheme.

[Reggie]

I am not aware of any other projects the unit has recently undertaken that had a particularly high proportion of students/training grads/retirees/less experienced staff other than the one I refered to. I can say that casual diggers on that project were paid at Level 2: Site Assisant 1, according to the BAJR scale, which suggests they had the experience level required to do the basic job. If the unit was really cost cutting and the staff employed had little experience then wouldn't they have been employed at Level 1 wages? If the unit has done other projects with a similar staff structure then I haven't heard anything of them on the grapevine.

But as I understand it from your posts/replies your problem is with units employing too many of the lower levels of staff compared to the experienced staff, either to cut costs or because they are not considered good employers and therefore cannot recruit/retain experienced staff. What ratio would you suggest for say, Site Assistant 1s to Site Assistant 2s to Assistant Field Officers to Field Officers to Directors ? Does it depend on the size and type of project ?

I am just starting in this game and there seems to be so much politics involved its hard to know who or what to believe ! :(

[Toby]

forum

/form/

• noun (pl. forums) 1 a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a court or tribunal. 3 (pl. fora) (in ancient Roman cities) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

[Mole]

As has been mentioned on other threads I don't think this is a question of not utilising staff of differing abilities but of striking a balance between getting the job done to the appropriate standard and giving those with little or no experience the chance of learning. We do need newbies coming up through the ranks and gaining the experience and skills required but we also need to keep in mind that if the digging/recording of the archaeology is buggered up then it is gone - we cannot go back and redo it.

I don't know about the unit discussed above but there are units (no names no pack drill) who do staff commertial digs with new graduates and vollenteers with only a few experienced staff. This ratio does nothing for the archaeology and to be honest does not equip new site staff with the nessesary skills to work effectively elsewhere (this is from experience of having employed some who have obstensively had 6 months - 1 year fieldwork experience but could not record or dig stratigraphically).

I agree with mercenary that there is a general decline in skill/experience levels in excavation teams. While this is not the fault of the individual site staff it is a general malaise in the profession (if I can use this term!). We lose experienced staff either upwards away from the field or outward to better paid more secure jobs but expect that less experienced staff will be able to jump straight into their shoes. While some can do this admirably we are ending up with excavators who do not relise they are making mistakes and supervisors who have not the experience to notice or if they do not see the problems it will cause further down the line.

Stop now ...Calm...Calm...deep breaths!

[mercenary]

quote:But as I understand it from your posts/replies your problem is with units employing too many of the lower levels of staff compared to the experienced staff, either to cut costs or because they are not considered good employers and therefore cannot recruit/retain experienced staff. What ratio would you suggest for say, Site Assistant 1s to Site Assistant 2s to Assistant Field Officers to Field Officers to Directors ? Does it depend on the size and type of project ?



I couldn't suggest a ratio based on those categories alone because the skills/experience of individuals in the same post could vary enormously. I know field officers with only a couple of years of commercial experience or less, and they are in a different league to the ones who've been at it for 10+ years.

Thinking back to when I started out (not so long ago!) a digger with less than a years experience was considered pretty green. The good units would take on only limited numbers with this experience level, and generally on the larger excavations only, where there would be a surplus of supervision. I was in the business for well over a year before I worked on an evaluation, and about 3 years before I did a watching brief. This was not universal practice, but could be considered an ideal.

The less good units employed a majority of excavation staff with less than a years experience, under the supervision of one or sometimes two very experienced staff.

Ten years on and I had expected that the situation and experience levels had risen. My current employer pays well and attracts experienced staff, a situation I'd like to see become the norm in the industry, but one that I recognize is unusual.

An entirely typical example: a recent large-ish urban evaluation we did had an ever changing team, but on average was run by a field officer with 10+ years experience, and had four archaeologist with experience ranging from 2 to 10 years each. The average was 5.8 years. I can perhaps imagine employing 1 student/training dig grad/retired amateur on the project without our work beeing too adversely affected. On large excavations perhaps one more.

I hope this puts my whinge into context. I expect the unit in question to be leading the way on professionalism in the industry because of the RAO an SCAUM connections, and it clearly isn't. Instead, my own employer, which ironically is considered a cowboy company by said unit, is setting the standard.

[1man1desk]

quote:1man1desk, make your mind up sir-either you specify professionalism across the board or, make fawning allowences for this sort of sh*t simply because big boys names are on the project...... - originally posted by Troll

Troll,

As you know from my previous posts, I do specify professional experience. However -

Students have to get experience somewhere, so why not have a small number on some commercial jobs? It would give them more realistic experience than training digs. I did say they should be supplementary to a team that would be adequate without them.

Retirees can take up a second career as professional archaeologists, and I have seen some good ones.

Graduates of training digs - can't see any argument against them; every professional archaeologist has to start somewhere, and at least this means that your newbies have been on a site before and have some on-site training.

The point is that any team can include a small proportion of such people, but a team that is made up entirely/mostly of them is not going to be a good team. That needs to be avoided. However, describing these worthy people as "this sort of sh*t" is pointlessly offensive. If there is anything wrong, then it is the unit management's fault, not the people they employ.




1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sith]

I suppose that I must have been part of the "sh*t" problem too, as I started as a 13 year old volunteer. In fact thinking about it, that must have been in the good old government funded pre-PPG16 and competitive tendering days.

But seriously, it was only the experience that I got through doing that and other paid work in the years before I got to university that enabled me to embark on a not particularly sparkling but fairly satisfying and successful career in archaeology. Based on most employment practice, the need to keep professionals in work and the attitudes of some in the discipline most keen youngsters are denied the kind of opportunity that I had. I know that they can now access things like the YAC, but it's not the same. by spending time with hardened professionals (and hard drinkers also) in working units I saw what it was really like on site, discovered that I liked the team spirit on site and learned a hell of a lot about digging, recording and interpretation (far more than I learnt at university or possibly after that).

Ahh, I remember the good old days. Did I ever tell you about the time old.....

S

[mercenary]

quote:However, describing these worthy people as "this sort of sh*t" is pointlessly offensive.

A re-reading of Trolls posting suggests he was referring to the employment practice of filling teams with inexperienced staff, and not in any way referring to the staff themselves. This is exactly my complaint too.

Some of you out there seem to have taken offense where none is intended. At issue is unit experience levels not individual experience levels.

[troll]

Thankyou Mercenary. Filling teams with inexperienced staff and in lots of cases nowadays, filling supervisory/site management teams with similar, results in hideously poor standards-ie sh*t. Why is that "pointlessly offensive"? What is pointless and offensive is that the IFA have laid down clear guidelines to ensure that ability must match the task in hand-"professionalism" if you like. If we are to simply ignore this most basic of concepts whenever we feel like it then what`s the point? The "offensive" bit for me is simply this, the IFA do not and, have not policed this guideline.The people are not sh*t, I never said that. The practise of taking on projects that require competent and experienced people (coal-face/supervisory) and then staffing them almost entirely with people who dont fit the criteria is just not on. How does an RAO justify this to the IFA and, the commercial client?

[Sith]

Sorry if I took the comments out of context, I must have been having an off day. However, we seem to have returned to a familiar theme here: whinging about bad practice rather than taking action to stop it (or at least try).

If the company in question is an RAO then inform the IFA. They are not going to feel a disturbance in the Force! If you don’t tell them they cannot do anything about it.

It may not be relevant to the structure of this particular employer, but the following is taken from Example 2.1 of the IFA “Regulations for the Registration of Archaeological Organisations”:

“There is an assumption that archaeological work would only be carried out (or supervised) by persons qualified for, and possessing, appropriate IFA membership and holding Responsible Posts. The applicant organisation will have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the IFA, if required, that archaeological work will not be carried out or supervised by anyone else.”

I’m sure that it could be used in the case of an RAO using inexperienced staff, supervised by inexperienced supervisors. The implication is that someone qualified should be in control and surely this must apply in the field as well as in the office. It is the Institute of FIELD Archaeologists after all.

S

[1man1desk]

Good point Sith.

The issue here is that the IFA is quite a small organisation, and it cannot go out and check up on every project run by every unit. It sets down rules, makes units show the procedures they have in place to implement them (annually), and monitors on an occasional basis. That is actually quite a lot to do.

If a unit transgresses, the IFA can only take action if someone makes a complaint to them and can back it up with evidence. They have recently demonstrated willingness to take action if they do get a complaint (cf de-registration of Archaeological Solutions). I hope that no one is asking them to de-register RAOs when there is no actual evidence presented! Gossip on this website does not constitute either a formal complaint or evidence. So - go and complain!

All of the above applies, more-or-less, to every professional body in the country (with the possible exception of the General Medical Council). The only significant difference at the IFA is that too many members of the profession stay outside the IFA, complaining that it is too weak while making sure that it stays that way.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[achingknees]

“There is an assumption that archaeological work would only be carried out (or supervised) by persons qualified for, and possessing, appropriate IFA membership and holding Responsible Posts. The applicant organisation will have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the IFA, if required, that archaeological work will not be carried out or supervised by anyone else.” [:0][:0][:0]

Mmmm...I don't possess appropriate membership and I've been supervising and managing sites for years. Ditto nearly all of my peers I can think of. I reckon the vast majority of RAOs are not sticking to their own rules.

I also know of several IFA members at all levels who wouldn't have a clue with site supervision. Sorry, had to have a pop at IFA - I haven't done it for ages [:p]

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by achingknees
I don't possess appropriate membership and I've been supervising and managing sites for years. Ditto nearly all of my peers I can think of.

I don't think that the RAO guidelines on this are particularlly clear (or maybe I'm having a thick afternoon). I would have thought that IFA would have to make allowances for staff at all levels to be suitably "experienced" rather than qualified or in possession of IFA membership, otherwise it would be impossible for most companies to become RAOs ("No bad thing" chorus many Bajrs). I'm assuming that your years of experience supervising sites have left you competent in your job otherwise you wouldn't still be doing it. That probably ought to be sufficient. IFA's problem in all of this is spotting the rotten apples in the barrel.

S

[troll]

Agreed-IFA membership at any level is no guarantee of ability. Membership of said organisation would possibly increase if they were seen to be carrying out their obligations as outlined in ppg16. Plenty of us have worked under MIFA types who could barely write their own name. Surely, we have to have standards and, effective methods of policing them.

[1man1desk]

Troll,

I agree with you in most ways, but see my previous post on this thread about why the IFA is weak.

We do have standards, and like most professions we have two strands for policing them - regulators (curators) and professional bodies (the IFA).

Both policing strands are weak. The curators are another topic, but it is in our hands as archaeologists to make the IFA stronger. Many archaeologists don't like it much, but it is the only professional body we have. If you want it to take a stronger policing role - then join it, get all your friends to join it, vote in the election of council, and make your voice heard at AGMs and conferences.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[deepdigger]

Pass my Balaclava!

deep

[trowelfodder]

Im with you deep!

[troll]

I feel that the IFA are but one strand in the rope.An un-regulated industry functioning in a competative tendering environment is a recipe for disaster. The role of Curators/LPAs and consultants can often be seen to compound those disasters. Whilst I believe a holistic approach to these issues is required, I agree with 1man- join the IFA. I hope to join as an affiliate this month (funds forthcoming of course!). Having signed up to abide by rules and regs, thats exactly how I will then work.If we all took the same course, we as a workforce would not then accept the muppetry seen in the field on the basis that the decisions made by the incompetent breach said rules and regs.Instant policing.In an environment where increasing numbers of commercial enterprises choose profit over professionalism, maybe its time we policed the regs ourselves.Epsecially in the field-not only is this where the finite primary data either stands or falls, tiz where the full glare of "compromise" becomes apparent too.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

From Troll:
quote:The role of Curators/LPAs and consultants can often be seen to compound those disasters.
That may be true on occasion. In my experience, however, the role of curators and consultants more commonly mitigates against the worst potential aspects of competitive tendering and weak regulation.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

good day 1man, hope you are well. Sadly,I`m afraid the case is true for most projects I have experienced over the past nine years.Hence my annoying but consistant call for change!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[monty]

A certain well known "contractor specialising in linear projects" will employ absolutely anyone regardless of experience ! this includes staff from Digger to Project Officer, a very sorry state of affairs ! (We all know who they are !!)

rabarnett

[stripeykelly]

I completely agree with 1man1desk. We cannot spend our lives and tea breaks complaining about the current state of archaeology if we are not going to stand up and do something to change it. Joining the IFA may initially seem to be pointless, but if there are enough of us we can change the system from the inside out, or at least make our presence and opinions heard. We can push for proper regulation, so, as troll points out, tendering doesn't exist in the current Duckensian* "lassie faire" norm. Although 1man1desk, there is often the feeling by those of us in the lower echelons of the job, that to complain is to put your job/reputation on the line. That to keep mum and your job often outways the individual need to complain. Once we get rid of this climate of fear, it will be another improvement in the field.

*I don't know why it is saying Duckensian, but I can't seem to change it!! What's going on Mr Host!?[?]

the future's bright; the future's trowel shaped

[troll]

Greetings Monty. Sadly, the situation you describe is not resticted to one organisation. Major problems in UK commercial archaeology are allowed to continue due to a complete lack of policing by curators or the IFA.The commercial environment has effectively reduced archaeology to a mere heritage -removal service. Problem is, there are big bucks to be made in commercial archaeology. Professional standards, ethics and codes of practise are seen largely as mere hurdles to skirt around in such a competative environment.:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

Posted by Stripeykelly:
quote:Although 1man1desk, there is often the feeling by those of us in the lower echelons of the job, that to complain is to put your job/reputation on the line.
I know that is a common perception. All I can say is that, although I am in quite a senior position now, that was not always the case.

Earlier in my career, I always made a noise, complained where necessary, argued with the boss, etc. I still do it. My personal experience was that, as long as I put a good argument and had positive ways forward, this behaviour did not result in dire employment consequences; in fact, I attribute part of my progress up the greasy pole to my readiness to argue. While it can be risky, it also calls attention to the individual and gets them noticed.

Maybe I have just been lucky in my bosses - I certainly know that has been the case since I went into consultancy - but keeping quiet and avoiding notice certainly doesn't help you to progress in your career. Sometimes you need to take a risk.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Tim]

"Although 1man1desk, there is often the feeling by those of us in the lower echelons of the job, that to complain is to put your job/reputation on the line. That to keep mum and your job often outways the individual need to complain. Once we get rid of this climate of fear, it will be another improvement in the field."

In the UK you can "Whistle Blow" and have the right to be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.




"Freedom of ideas is one thing, freedom of the purse is quite another". Edward Harris

[Sniffer]

I wanna ask my boss this to be sure - but I believe we only use students or others as 'supernumerary to establishment' i.e. to give educational exposure without leaving responsibilty in their hands; and certainly wouldn't fill designated posts with them even if we employed them during a gap year or outside term time. I know we've used a metal detecting club for one project - but that was to do additional work not being charged for and was providing an educational benefit to the club.

Students aren't meant to be a cheap source of labour or a way of doing things to maximum profit. They're meant to be learning. We had a Mexican student turn up as a volunteer digger. He spent all his time when above trench workshadowing people. His idea and all credit to him.

I wonder how many clients of commercial archaeology specify the employment status of postholders in tender docs? I've never seen it - only vague things about the Directors, professional memberships and project managers.

I'm inclined to agree with Troll about UK commercial archaeology being a heritage-removal service. It looks that way often enough. Sadly, the state of the commercial sector in the UK is such that contractors have to maximise their gain on each project to survive. Too many contractors, too little archaeology.

[hurting-back]

To answer your question about tender docs: I can tell you from working extensively with tenders that the majority of briefs and specifications we receive to determine our scope of work use IFA guidelines as their base and require that the team consist of suitably qualified professionals.

About the students: while on an excavation it may save a contractor in the short term to rely on an excessive amount of 'cheap' student labour, usually this turns out to be a false economy; experienced archaeologists record accurately and quickly and keep the recording methodology consistent throughout the site which greatly facilitates the post excavation process. To attain this level of ability requires not only experience and ability, which many students and amateurs undoubtly have, but experience with the recording methods of the unit one is working for, which in turn requires an investment by the unit in its workers over some time.

This is more obvious with evaluations as a poorly executed evaluation results in a poor understanding of what archaeology may be on site which has great ramifications for everyone involved when the client then asks what the scope of the mitigation will be. This is why many large consultancies will insist on the use of professional archaeologists (as defined by the IFA) as a poor result will reflect badly on them as they will not be able to advise their client of the likely cost of excavation.

Also the use of students or similar is often inappropriate in certain types of sites such as linear schemes and urban excavations where there are many health and safety considerations. Moreover, many clients now require all workers on their sites, including archaeologists, to hold CSCS cards.

Sorry to ramble, but I suppose the point is that all the paperwork is often already there - the problem is that when costing a project you are often resourcing an extremely vague amount of work. This is compounded by poor practice: I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk! This is obviously bad for the client, who has paid to evaluate the site to see what is there and plan appropriately, and reflects very badly on us archaeologists!

This sort of behaviour is what damages the profession not, as you rightly point out, the use of the odd student on an appropriate project.

don't panic

[1man1desk]

Posted by Sniffer:
quote:I wonder how many clients of commercial archaeology specify the employment status of postholders in tender docs? I've never seen it - only vague things about the Directors, professional memberships and project managers.

In our consultancy role we usually include clauses specifically limiting/controlling the use of volunteers, both to prevent exploitation and to prevent undercutting through use of extra-cheap but unskilled labour. We do also specify minimum levels of qualification/experience for every staff role during site work and during post-ex, with supplementary evidence/justification required if the unit proposes someone who does not quite meet the criteria.

Posted by Hurting Back:
quote:I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk!
It is part of a consultant's role to assess tenders in terms of quality as well as price, and there have been occasions where we have advised our client to reject the cheapest price because we were not convinced the unit had put sufficient resources in place. Our advice has always been taken on this point.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[hurting-back]

Hello 1man, just to be clear: I don't think that the consultants are necessarily the problem in this area (although I can think of many who do not always put quality over short-term price savings); this situation is often caused by inexperienced clients making a cost based decision which then results in the situation outlined above. This is made worse by the fact that there is often little done (to judge by some of the evaluation reports from many units that I am forced to read) to assure that the report is of a high enough quality to achive its stated aims: namely to, as far as practicable, accurately assess the nature and extent of any archaeological remains sufficiently to create a reliable mitigation strategy.

I do not think there is one group of people to blame for this: undoubtedly some curators could do more to enforce quality, but they only have a limited remit (don't get me wrong, I know many curators who work very hard to maintain standards and that the problem here is often systemic rather than with individuals); equally there are units willing to undertake poor quality fieldwork and produce bad reports in the first place. I also admit that all units have probably done this at one point or another...no one is perfect. The main point I tried to make (rather poorly really after re-reading my original entry) is that the use of students would not confer a real advantage financially to a project's budget unless there was either a lack of quality control of the fieldwork through to the post excavation or a very skilled and experienced batch of students on the site willing to work more or less for free (which I suppose could happen).

don't panic!

[1man1desk]

Dear Hurting,

It's not a question of putting quality over price; more one of seeking a correct balance, where you know that the quality is good enough to meet the stated aims and objectives of the work. I wouldn't go too far in the other direction either, where the unit offers all sorts of extras which might be nice academically but are not relevant to the objectives, but which do cost money.

On the role of consultants, we usually work only for the larger clients, who tend to be fairly good. It is the smaller developers, or those in more cut-throat competitive industries, that tend to be budget slashers.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[hurting-back]

1man,

The quality statement should read more like 'necessary' quality, or better yet 'I can think of some who often put short-term price savings before the quality necessary to achive the project's aims and objectives' - often I encounter, with clients of all sizes, that there is favourable treatment given to those expressing the view that the archeaology is 'nothing to worry about' or of less consequence than it may actually be. This can invariably push down prices on projects and is a sin committed by consultants and contractors alike (but not by all of them!). While this may be more common in smaller scale projects, it certainly is not limited to them. The consequences of this are there for all to see. Hence my statement (with caveat) about curators and the variable nature of fieldwork and reporting requirements. It is this environment that allows poor quality reports to be given to me to form the basis for mitigation strategies and is also what would make the use of students and the like financially beneficial to a project's budget.

So I agree - the right balance is essential and I would never advise a client do more than is required by their planning condition. My fear and frequent frustration is that I often see the results of projects which do not meet even these minimum requirements.

Back still Hurting.....

don't panic!

[BAJR Host]

back with my curatorial head on.. I agree that there can be a push for the cheap eval in the hope of getting the BIG job.. however.. I would not let a sub-standard report past.. and with my consultant hat on my curatorial head I would not be happy with a less than thorough report either... I do feel that minimum standards should be 'replaced' with exemplary standards, as we all know that to 'win' contracts we have to cut cloth etc to the minimum required, as the developer does not want to pay for 5 extra soil samples for example if they don't need to...

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[hurting-back]

I like the idea of 'exemplary' standards rather than minimum; what may not be 'necessary' to achieve the minimum required by a brief may actually be very useful in determining development impacts more accurately and in fine tuning research objectives to avoid surprises in post excavation costs, for instance. Recently I have had some success in convincing clients to invest a bit more (for a stated objective) to allow them a clearer picture and better planning. Often the archaeological cost risk to the client isn't in the actual cost of a unit undertaking an evaluation or excavation, but in the unexpected delays they can cause - I have seen pipepine jobs where the cost of having the archaeological team out for one entire day equates to the cost to the client of having their team held up for a few hours! I think formalising the approach you suggest, even alittle bit, would have benefits for clients, contractors and for the quality of work.

don't panic!

[drpeterwardle]

I appear to work in a different system to everybody else:

For example hurting back said the objective of an evaluation is:

"accurately assess the nature and extent of any archaeological remains sufficiently to create a reliable mitigation strategy".

The objective of a pre-determination evaluation is to provide enough infomation so that a reasoned planning decision can be made that is will it be refused or a condition place upon it. Evaluation can be used to determine the scope of an excavation and/or form the basis of the tender competition for an excavation.

1manand his desk said.
"It is the smaller developers, or those in more cut-throat competitive industries, that tend to be budget slashers."

Most developments work on tiny margins compared to risk for example housing, pfi schemes etc."

Big developers PLCs or pension funds etc have duties to share holders/investors which again means they have to be very careful about costs.

Somebody said "I would never advise a client do more than is required by their planning condition" Why on earth not? There may be good reason for doing things the planning system cannot demand - managing risk and closely defining the scope of an excavation are good examples of this. I do this all the time.

The notion that the cost of a digging team for a day equates to the delay cost of a few hours delay for the main contractor on a pipeline
is simply not the case. A few minutes more like - having said that the delay cost on most pipelines can be capped.

As for the notion that it is the unexpected delays that cause the problems not just the actual archaeology costs is a simplification. There is a cost to any project in terms of archaeologists being present unexpected or not.

Myself I see nothing wrong with students/new graduates being employed by Units (provided that they are properly trained in H&S) how else are people going to get experience? Particularly on placements that form part of the degree course at the better Universities.

What is important however is that the project is correctly monitored, staff are supervised and the "quality" of the work is checked. There should also not be too many of them

Peter Wardle

[Sniffer]

I would like to pick up on the 'duty to profit' element involved in commercial archaeology. I think the difference between a job being done by all-qualified staff as per the best of local rules and it having corners cut is down to how that duty to profit is interpreted.

The small firm has to break even after wages on pretty much all but the most instant jobs. They don't have the luxury of taking the longer view of providing 110% of what's needed or providing 'freebies'. The larger contractors usually have enough budgetary slack to provide those without it impacting on their ability to meet the bills or demonstrate a profit to shareholders etc.

What's the answer? If I knew that, I would be owning my own business instead of working for Pat - but it might have a little something to do with the pay scales.

Yes, it's right that everyone doing Grade 4 work gets Grade 4 cash in their hands - but that is disadvantageous to the smaller contractor unless they can replace part of that with a share option, bonus or such (say 90% rated salary and the remaining 10% being replaced with shares issued to the value of 15%). Allowing smaller contractors to keep their direct cash costs down without ruining the earnings of employees and potential employees will help those smaller contractors to engage enough of the professional staff.

It's a rather simplistic solution, but when it's competition time and it's David Vs Goliath, David needs a gimmick or an edge if he's ever to win. True, it might be said that all the unique selling points of personal service and not being a faceless corporation count - but I doubt they count that much when it comes to dealing with non-archaeologically-minded pursestring-holders.

The quality issue and building a relationship does.

[hurting-back]

Several issues:
1) The mitigation strategy as an end goal in may argument was following on from previous discussions, you are correct that in a pre-determination evaluation you are working to inform a planning decision. Nonetheless, I still see the production of an appropriate mitigation strategy as key, because planning decisions can often be affected by the quality and the nature of the mitigation strategy.

2) I would not advise that a client do more than can reasonably be inferred by their condition (in the form of an archaeological brief) as it is this that provides the client with a firmer basis on which to compare costs from different contractors, and it also provides contractors with a level playing field to provide costs to. With certain types of projects, I will sometimes provide a range of options to clients with explanations that a more in depth approach would result in a more reliable investigation, which in turn facilitates work later on. However, all but the most enlightened clients (very very few of them) will not go with an option that they perceive would exceed the minimum of what they are required to do by the condition/brief. This why I think that BAJR Hosts idea for exemplart standards would be a good addition to briefs, as it would provide justification for different approaches and promote the examination of different techniques.

3) If you lood carefully above you will note that I said 'Often the archaeological cost risk to the client isn't in the actual cost of a unit undertaking an evaluation or excavation, but in the unexpected delays they can cause - I have seen pipepine jobs where the cost of having the archaeological team out for one entire day equates to the cost to the client of having their team held up for a few hours!' and not that this is always the case. Moreover while the delay costs can be capped, it is often at a much higher level than the cost of an archaeological team and also just because a delay is capped, if a clients team is on site some is still incurring costs. Moreover, capping does not often happen if the delays are dispersed throughout the scheme rather than concentrated in one area. The point I was making was that it is far better for the client to encourage better planning and eariler involvement using a system of exemplary standards than not.

don't panic!

[1man1desk]

Posted by BAJR Host:
quote:I do feel that minimum standards should be 'replaced' with exemplary standards, as we all know that to 'win' contracts we have to cut cloth etc to the minimum required, as the developer does not want to pay for 5 extra soil samples for example if they don't need to...

Posted by Hurting Back:
quote: I like the idea of 'exemplary' standards rather than minimum; what may not be 'necessary' to achieve the minimum required by a brief may actually be very useful in determining development impacts more accurately and in fine tuning research objectives to avoid surprises in post excavation costs, for instance.
The trouble with setting 'exemplary' standards is that, by definition, you are saying "it would be nice to reach this standard, but it's ok not to". In other words, it is not enforceable. Therefore, if you have exemplary standards instead of minimum ones, there is no 'floor' - you can go as low as you like.
A minimum standard is one that can be enforced, because it must be reached. If current standards are too lax, the solution is not to replace minimums with exemplaries; it is to raise the bar by improving the minimum standard.

In relation to Hurting Back's comments about what is 'necessary' and what is not - I don't look at the word 'necessary' in terms of 'what is required to achieve the minimum required by the brief'. Rather, I look at it in terms of what is required to meet the Aims and Objectives that should be set in the Brief or Specification. Those aims and objectives should always determine what is 'necessary' in the scope of the investigation, at every stage. If the aims and objectives are properly set, then any additional work not necessary to achieve them would be hard to justify.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished