11th November 2009, 06:34 PM
Hi Ken ? great post ? and Kevin?s too regarding the erosion of membership interests in the face of commercial pressure. There are a few things I?m unclear with and I?m hoping you can expand.
You write that ?The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side? ? but is this not also a problem with how our work is defined in the eyes of our clients? The majority of clients are focussed on time and cost and have no interest in the quality of the final product so long as it meets their statutory obligations. This is exacerbated because:
My question is really concerned with your second bullet point - the IFA?s aspirations to become the gateway to market.
I have always been led to believe that a barrier to entry is a step towards solving both the quality issue and the pay issue, and am interested to hear why you don?t think this will be the case. If the IFA impose a barrier to entry on the market place, and limit this to a chartered/ROA membership, they can also enforce equitable pay scales for their membership. And by monitoring the quality of archaeological work, businesses ?squeezing cost to gain market advantage? will surely have to lift their game. Rather than the IFA address these problems, you suggest that the market can generate its own creative solutions:
Are you saying that this is an opportunity for change, and the IFA is standing in the way of this by shoring up a fatally flawed system? What possible model could provide ?responsible and mature basis for business development? when faced with the basic reality that we have a client who doesn?t care what he?s buying as long as its cheap and entry level staff who don?t care how little they earn as long as it covers their cost?
You write that ?The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side? ? but is this not also a problem with how our work is defined in the eyes of our clients? The majority of clients are focussed on time and cost and have no interest in the quality of the final product so long as it meets their statutory obligations. This is exacerbated because:
ken whittaker Wrote:?most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense?
My question is really concerned with your second bullet point - the IFA?s aspirations to become the gateway to market.
ken whittaker Wrote:The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ?institutionalising? underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.
I have always been led to believe that a barrier to entry is a step towards solving both the quality issue and the pay issue, and am interested to hear why you don?t think this will be the case. If the IFA impose a barrier to entry on the market place, and limit this to a chartered/ROA membership, they can also enforce equitable pay scales for their membership. And by monitoring the quality of archaeological work, businesses ?squeezing cost to gain market advantage? will surely have to lift their game. Rather than the IFA address these problems, you suggest that the market can generate its own creative solutions:
ken whittaker Wrote:In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.
Are you saying that this is an opportunity for change, and the IFA is standing in the way of this by shoring up a fatally flawed system? What possible model could provide ?responsible and mature basis for business development? when faced with the basic reality that we have a client who doesn?t care what he?s buying as long as its cheap and entry level staff who don?t care how little they earn as long as it covers their cost?