30th May 2008, 03:01 PM
Normally at this point hosty starts pointing out that we should set up a new topic. We then get into the so called new topic and the need new topic agenda is repeated eventually it disappears into smoke.
What the heck may as well carry on until we get the new topic hint ?gives him something to do.
Lets start with
I agree. but if you want to be a manager to any of the above you would go the mba route. Now there are lots of professionals who cross over into management and I have met many who went via the part time mba route. I suggest that when they go into management that they are competing in the mba market and in a competitive world if they are any good at it they go and ply their management skills to the highest bidder and across industries. (maybe see the ifa course as a pretty miserable lifeline out).
Taking from your examples in those businesses it is obvious whom the professional is. If for instance a medical manager were to approach me, grab my lily tickler and ask me to cough I would have the lawyers/solicitor round to prepare my claim for assault (and I would be not impressed if I was sent a manager).
In the civil service dominated archaeology they we have evolved in britain the named (sole responsible) archaeologist is conspicuous by their absence (which is why I don?t think that you can think of a few!). As in the famous pay scales of hosty - no one is an archaeologist. We have the world of the team which includes a cross over to so called curators and if anybody in that team was to suggest that they did not like the way things were going they would soon find that the hive would turn them out. This is the situation with RAOs. They are not organisations that service their archaeologists and from which archaeologists are protected, they are organisations which are the archaeologist, nomilly the desk bound superannuated director. So taking the ifa codes, everywhere you find the word archaeologist it is replaced with the word RAO. (in these organisations being an archaeologists is meaningless so everybody?s one and I suspect that?s whats confusing you/me).
Taking the observation further
Is this an archaeologist speaking or a manager? I suggest that it is a manager speaking to another manager in a system, which is trying to manage archaeology without an archaeologist. Don?t you agree Wainwright?
So in the example of the kiln what I am doing is modelling in a business sense (dosh) is where the value is- what is shared with specialists and what is shared with curators and what is shared with the client. I think that I am supposed to, as an archaeologist. Whats going on is that a lot of the stitch up is in the spec/written scheme/wsi. So wsis will include named specialists so that the field archaeologist does not have to be able to call a kiln a kiln which works fine with the RAO mentality and experienced field staff can be paid peanuts and don?t have to know anything (differentiate pot from stone just). I am not having ago at specialists possibly what I am suggesting is that the ifa should be attempting to differentiate between a General practitioner, a consultant and a Registrar (who are all allowed to examine the lily tickler) and although it should have an opinion about the interface to managers I think these courses/ifa are for RAOs and not archaeologists.
What the heck may as well carry on until we get the new topic hint ?gives him something to do.
Lets start with
Quote:quote:I am confused by the comments which seem to imply that one cannot be a manager and an archaeologist.....how is it that private doctors, architects, lawyers, builders......come to think about it, half of the entire country manage to keep going without an MBA then?
I agree. but if you want to be a manager to any of the above you would go the mba route. Now there are lots of professionals who cross over into management and I have met many who went via the part time mba route. I suggest that when they go into management that they are competing in the mba market and in a competitive world if they are any good at it they go and ply their management skills to the highest bidder and across industries. (maybe see the ifa course as a pretty miserable lifeline out).
Taking from your examples in those businesses it is obvious whom the professional is. If for instance a medical manager were to approach me, grab my lily tickler and ask me to cough I would have the lawyers/solicitor round to prepare my claim for assault (and I would be not impressed if I was sent a manager).
In the civil service dominated archaeology they we have evolved in britain the named (sole responsible) archaeologist is conspicuous by their absence (which is why I don?t think that you can think of a few!). As in the famous pay scales of hosty - no one is an archaeologist. We have the world of the team which includes a cross over to so called curators and if anybody in that team was to suggest that they did not like the way things were going they would soon find that the hive would turn them out. This is the situation with RAOs. They are not organisations that service their archaeologists and from which archaeologists are protected, they are organisations which are the archaeologist, nomilly the desk bound superannuated director. So taking the ifa codes, everywhere you find the word archaeologist it is replaced with the word RAO. (in these organisations being an archaeologists is meaningless so everybody?s one and I suspect that?s whats confusing you/me).
Taking the observation further
Quote:quote:If you are responsible for the implementation of the mitigation strategy and have material remains which need specialist analysis which you cannot do yourself, you will have to get someone else to spend their time doing it. They will probably (no matter how nicely you ask) want to be paid for this, so I am afraid you will need to familiarise yourself with a few procurement procedures and some simple contracts.
Is this an archaeologist speaking or a manager? I suggest that it is a manager speaking to another manager in a system, which is trying to manage archaeology without an archaeologist. Don?t you agree Wainwright?
So in the example of the kiln what I am doing is modelling in a business sense (dosh) is where the value is- what is shared with specialists and what is shared with curators and what is shared with the client. I think that I am supposed to, as an archaeologist. Whats going on is that a lot of the stitch up is in the spec/written scheme/wsi. So wsis will include named specialists so that the field archaeologist does not have to be able to call a kiln a kiln which works fine with the RAO mentality and experienced field staff can be paid peanuts and don?t have to know anything (differentiate pot from stone just). I am not having ago at specialists possibly what I am suggesting is that the ifa should be attempting to differentiate between a General practitioner, a consultant and a Registrar (who are all allowed to examine the lily tickler) and although it should have an opinion about the interface to managers I think these courses/ifa are for RAOs and not archaeologists.