21st February 2011, 09:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 21st February 2011, 09:55 AM by troll.)
Arguably, client groups across the range of end-users have partaken in grumbling/lobbying about the "high" costs of archaeology imposed upon them-not the aggregate industry alone. The development industry also has a fairly loud voice on this issue. The Localism Bill is in my view, a reflection of the influence of many of these corporate lobby groups. As a profession, we could re-assess the role of consultancies in an effort to rebalance some equations. Government is all too aware that a significant proportion of budgets are spent on consultants. It`s always been a mystery to me-why does a client pay a thousand pounds a day to a "consultant" for the same advice and project management that they could procure from a commercial unit? Consultants have (in my experience) assumed the roles of Local Government Curators and in some cases, dictated to those Curatorial staff. Consultancies are simply project managers who have assumed the mantle of "consultants" and in the process command often ridiculous fees for advice available elsewhere at more agreeable costs and often offered by professionals with far more experience. I don`t get it.
Many-if not most- of the larger established commercial archaeology enterprises offer a `cradle to the grave` service to clients and yet, many potential clients choose to employ consultants first. Isn`t that paying for the same services twice? The role of consultants should be separated from the role of Curators. If a client seeks the services of a reputable commercial company and that company is regulated by a professional Institute and is monitored by Government Curators-why on earth are "consultants" needed? If a client chooses to pay silly money for an archaeologist that does the same job as another archaeologist simply because the magic terminology "consultant" is employed.......then more fool them. Consultancy across the UK and in a range of industries is bleeding client groups for all they can get. Good game. Ridiculous, but good game nonetheless. Oh and by the way....What goose?.:face-stir:
Many-if not most- of the larger established commercial archaeology enterprises offer a `cradle to the grave` service to clients and yet, many potential clients choose to employ consultants first. Isn`t that paying for the same services twice? The role of consultants should be separated from the role of Curators. If a client seeks the services of a reputable commercial company and that company is regulated by a professional Institute and is monitored by Government Curators-why on earth are "consultants" needed? If a client chooses to pay silly money for an archaeologist that does the same job as another archaeologist simply because the magic terminology "consultant" is employed.......then more fool them. Consultancy across the UK and in a range of industries is bleeding client groups for all they can get. Good game. Ridiculous, but good game nonetheless. Oh and by the way....What goose?.:face-stir: