1st December 2009, 01:31 AM
Yellowpete, you dingbat!
Hi Warren, welcome to the forum, I?d be interested in hearing how things work in your own county.
This is a typical criticism levelled at the commercial sector from academic archaeologists. The two sectors have different ways of measuring ?quality?. The former focuses on quality as process, as measured through health and safety compliance, management systems and financial capacity; the later focuses on publication and other knowledge products, as measured through peer review. These definitions of archaeological quality are not mutually exclusive, but it is notoriously difficult to design a procurement model that achieves both. Earlier in this thread Ken Whittaker described how this ?tension? between the construction industry and the wider archaeological community could be overstated, ?if either choose to look at respective priorities from polar positions?.
Developers themselves realise that they have little understanding of what constitutes acceptable standards in archaeology, and the larger and financially astute appoint consultants to act as intermediaries. Clare King describes above how she (as a consultant) can advise a client to award a contract to the archaeologist who may not have the lowest tender, but offer the least risk to project delivery.
I suspect that this is a different type of proposition to your own focus on quality assurance:
My question is concerned with how you would see this other type of quality ? the products and publications of the excavation ? delivered and monitored by the market place. The Anglo-Saxon model is to let business regulate itself, which is what the IfA is trying to do here by creating a barrier to entry. If this is supported with a rigorous (and independent) monitoring of all RO's the hope is that it will bring standards up across the board. It remains to be seen if this will work, let alone how this will work, so I'd be very interested to hear how this compares with your own county? What ideas are circulating there for raising the standard of archaeological work and its social and economic value?
Hi Warren, welcome to the forum, I?d be interested in hearing how things work in your own county.
Warren Wrote:Delivery on time surely depends on the quality of the product being produced, and corners can and will be cut. I agree that timetables are a major consideration for developers but that, in the end is just about reducing costs. I don't agree that developers award contracts with regard to quality of the archaeological product. Nominally maybe, but what developer is going to hold their hands up to admit to bad archaeology having been done on their watch? We should be very, very, wary of allowing the developer to be the judge of what constitutes acceptable standards of archaeology.
This is a typical criticism levelled at the commercial sector from academic archaeologists. The two sectors have different ways of measuring ?quality?. The former focuses on quality as process, as measured through health and safety compliance, management systems and financial capacity; the later focuses on publication and other knowledge products, as measured through peer review. These definitions of archaeological quality are not mutually exclusive, but it is notoriously difficult to design a procurement model that achieves both. Earlier in this thread Ken Whittaker described how this ?tension? between the construction industry and the wider archaeological community could be overstated, ?if either choose to look at respective priorities from polar positions?.
Developers themselves realise that they have little understanding of what constitutes acceptable standards in archaeology, and the larger and financially astute appoint consultants to act as intermediaries. Clare King describes above how she (as a consultant) can advise a client to award a contract to the archaeologist who may not have the lowest tender, but offer the least risk to project delivery.
I suspect that this is a different type of proposition to your own focus on quality assurance:
Warren Wrote:I do not believe that trying to ensure quality by grading ability will have the long term desired goal. I believe the only way to ensure quality in the product is to be able to assess the product itself - i.e. the results of the work. If work is completed below standard, then the main contractor and sub contractor should be held accountable
My question is concerned with how you would see this other type of quality ? the products and publications of the excavation ? delivered and monitored by the market place. The Anglo-Saxon model is to let business regulate itself, which is what the IfA is trying to do here by creating a barrier to entry. If this is supported with a rigorous (and independent) monitoring of all RO's the hope is that it will bring standards up across the board. It remains to be seen if this will work, let alone how this will work, so I'd be very interested to hear how this compares with your own county? What ideas are circulating there for raising the standard of archaeological work and its social and economic value?