13th November 2009, 12:21 PM
In response to digginthedirt:
My comment on the lack of demand and over-supply simply reflects the clear fact that there is less development and a consequent drop off in archaeological contracts at the moment. I believe your perception of customer apathy to quality is a separate matter to supply and demand. It also focuses on the archaeological product and overlooks the degree to which it is legitimate for customers' expectations to centre on the regulatory and commercial solutions they require. I fear there is scope for criticism from either party, if either choose to look at respective priorities from polar positions. I prefer not to overstate this tension and do not experience the development market as wholly indifferent to archaeological aspirations. To perpetuate an indifferent developer myth does not help foster better relationships with the development and construction industry. If we ensure customers see us for our ability to offer commercial and regulatory insights and demonstrate we can deliver these by means of our technical expertise, there are prospects to move away from the low-cost model whilst retaining our aspirations as archaeologists.
I have many concerns regarding barriers to entry, but principally it is an unnecessary and crude effort at market engineering and seems to be advanced as an alternative to essential structural change on the supply side; sadly as recent events show some ROs will continue to fixate on price even within the RO scheme. IfA has yet to demonstrate how it will be able to police the system effectively, nor how its role will relate to that of the curatorial network, which at least has a clear remit and means of enforcement, as advisors to the planning authorities who set the regulatory requirements governing the work. It also results in a fundamental shift within the IfA, away from the membership, creating opportunities for ROs, to act collectively in their own narrow interest, something that is seemingly already apparent. It seriously risks reducing the plurality and capability, especially among smaller organisations that offer a local or specialist services, who reasonably might not wish to submit to yet further regulatory controls, especially as this may involve scrutiny by individuals belonging to larger aggressive commercial rivals. I cannot see how it could be administered without a significant expansion of the IfA, which would place a burden of cost on the membership, who surely don?t deserve yet more pain. The list can go on, but there is also the question of whether it would be legal for the IfA to operate a mechanism for member organisations that has the potential of a cartel, and even if this hurdle could be cleared, there is no guarantee that the market would accept barriers to their right to procure services as they see fit.
I do indeed feel that these factors impede solutions to the current problems and there are business models that could be developed as an alternative. Whilst there are differences in the way that archaeological contractors and consultant organisations operate, the underlying business propositions are not so different and there is also a wide overlap in the products offered, ie contractors provide planning advice and some consultancies design, procure and manage fieldwork projects. However, consultancies have a far better record on pricing and offer generally improved terms for employees, reflecting success in aligning their products with the commercial and regulatory expectations of customers. The case of Headland Archaeology described in a recent Daily Telegraph article shows willingness of some archaeological contractors to adopt similar business practices. If more organisations were to implement such a change in business culture a more sustainable outcome can be achieved.
My comment on the lack of demand and over-supply simply reflects the clear fact that there is less development and a consequent drop off in archaeological contracts at the moment. I believe your perception of customer apathy to quality is a separate matter to supply and demand. It also focuses on the archaeological product and overlooks the degree to which it is legitimate for customers' expectations to centre on the regulatory and commercial solutions they require. I fear there is scope for criticism from either party, if either choose to look at respective priorities from polar positions. I prefer not to overstate this tension and do not experience the development market as wholly indifferent to archaeological aspirations. To perpetuate an indifferent developer myth does not help foster better relationships with the development and construction industry. If we ensure customers see us for our ability to offer commercial and regulatory insights and demonstrate we can deliver these by means of our technical expertise, there are prospects to move away from the low-cost model whilst retaining our aspirations as archaeologists.
I have many concerns regarding barriers to entry, but principally it is an unnecessary and crude effort at market engineering and seems to be advanced as an alternative to essential structural change on the supply side; sadly as recent events show some ROs will continue to fixate on price even within the RO scheme. IfA has yet to demonstrate how it will be able to police the system effectively, nor how its role will relate to that of the curatorial network, which at least has a clear remit and means of enforcement, as advisors to the planning authorities who set the regulatory requirements governing the work. It also results in a fundamental shift within the IfA, away from the membership, creating opportunities for ROs, to act collectively in their own narrow interest, something that is seemingly already apparent. It seriously risks reducing the plurality and capability, especially among smaller organisations that offer a local or specialist services, who reasonably might not wish to submit to yet further regulatory controls, especially as this may involve scrutiny by individuals belonging to larger aggressive commercial rivals. I cannot see how it could be administered without a significant expansion of the IfA, which would place a burden of cost on the membership, who surely don?t deserve yet more pain. The list can go on, but there is also the question of whether it would be legal for the IfA to operate a mechanism for member organisations that has the potential of a cartel, and even if this hurdle could be cleared, there is no guarantee that the market would accept barriers to their right to procure services as they see fit.
I do indeed feel that these factors impede solutions to the current problems and there are business models that could be developed as an alternative. Whilst there are differences in the way that archaeological contractors and consultant organisations operate, the underlying business propositions are not so different and there is also a wide overlap in the products offered, ie contractors provide planning advice and some consultancies design, procure and manage fieldwork projects. However, consultancies have a far better record on pricing and offer generally improved terms for employees, reflecting success in aligning their products with the commercial and regulatory expectations of customers. The case of Headland Archaeology described in a recent Daily Telegraph article shows willingness of some archaeological contractors to adopt similar business practices. If more organisations were to implement such a change in business culture a more sustainable outcome can be achieved.