Launch of MetroMOLA

[GPStone]

[I]
[/I]



Loads of this happening all over...and they know who they are............:face-stir:

I've worked all over the country for a wide variety and range of companies and, if I'm honest, I don't know that many (if any I can think of) who don't mess it up from time to time for a variety of reasons, some systemic and others personality lead; some issues concreted into the company's structure and others not.

Is it wrong for larger companies to expand or move into new areas? The reality is that cock-ups often relate to decisions taken by individuals, not a company or its size, and thats a much more difficult ethical dilemma to deal with than slagging off big companies. I've known more than enough small and medium sized companies run by experienced, well meaning and competent individuals with good reputations (who've I respect and have loved working with) who've made exactly the same cock-ups within what would be accepted as their own patch and they've had little or no comeback because they don't have the profile and they have stronger personal relationships with the local archaeological community and their staff........and they appear more commercially friendly to the rest of us (I do it instinctively).

Is it that we don't really like the idea of working in a real commercial environment that makes it alright to be disparaging about large organisations in a way we wouldn't about some smaller ones? Don't get me wrong, I think some have got it wrong and their approach and strategy isn't appropriate - I've worked for a couple who I don't think should be in existence because of the way they treat staff and archaeology. But I also think some of the larger organisations have got it right and its as a result of their industry wide corperate profile, investment in certain areas and standardised 'reasonable' treatment of staff that some gains were made over the last couple of decades, although many of those seem to have been lost now. What I can say is that I know from experience, a lot of larger companies do not make any actual money from errors (often they loose it as a result) or from cutting corners in the way that some smaller companies do (something else I know from experience - I hasten to say some, not all).

Big companies in limited markets will put smaller companies under pressure. That's commerce! I hate the ethics and ultimate outcome of the capitalist model as it appears to be playing out in our society, but we are in it and archaeology as much as any other industry. I'm also not saying we should be accepting when companies make mistakes and cut corners which impact on archaeology (and definitely not when they repeat them), but its so easy to oppose and raise issues with big companies expanding and so easy to paint all big archaeology units with the same brush because of what they are. The big archaeology companies are not multinationals (in real terms), they're rarely that cynical and many don't have shareholders (those that do, don't have many - but that's something else). They're also answerable to boards of trustees when they're charities and a number of the larger organisations actively invest (when they can afford it) in research, innovation, publications and improving staff benefits.

What do you think..............:face-stir:}

[monty]

. They're also answerable to boards of trustees when they're charities and a number of the larger organisations actively invest (when they can afford it) in research, innovation, publications and improving staff benefits......... .....................who? what? when? where? ........... never noticed it or heard of such...........as for the 'the improving of staff benefits' .....surely a joke ??????

[tom wilson]

Big companies in limited markets will put smaller companies under pressure. That's commerce!

Absolutely. There is no correlation at all between company size and quality of work. What there is, however, is a series of economies of scale that mean, in a mature market, big companies swallow up the smaller ones. Ours is just such a 'maturing market'. However, it's not all bad news for the little guy: there will always be an economy of scale for the lean, mean expert consultants and one-man bands.

The future belongs to Oxford/Wessex on the one hand and Dr Pete/Unit on the other. Everybody else better work out what their USP is before they get nudged out of existence.

[kevin wooldridge]

Absolutely. There is no correlation at all between company size and quality of work. What there is, however, is a series of economies of scale that mean, in a mature market, big companies swallow up the smaller ones. Ours is just such a 'maturing market'. However, it's not all bad news for the little guy: there will always be an economy of scale for the lean, mean expert consultants and one-man bands.

I think as well that we are apt to forget..... before commercial archaeology as we now know it took off (I mean in the 70s and early 80s before MSC took off) there were something in the region of 70 archaeological undertakings in the UK employing archaeologists, and numerous one-two man band type organisations sometimes self-employed, sometimes contracting themselves into work as employees. Sometimes these organisations combined on projects and sometimes staff were contracted from one to another. I mean in London alone prior to 1983 there were 8 separate professional archaeological organisations.....

My point is that often the names are changed, sometimes the people, but largely what we have now is what we have always had in UK archaeology - a disparate (and sometimes desperate!!) profession with little cohesion and normally at the blunt end of the stick the poor employee. Despite rumours to the contrary, it may be that the rise of the large companies squeezing the small business could actually be a positive step in UK archaeology....I mean none of the other incarnations of 'the industry' have ever done very much for the digger in the trench.

I note that as of today MetroMola are advertising for staff. I dare anyone to be critical of that initiative in these tough times.....

[GPStone]

. They're also answerable to boards of trustees when they're charities and a number of the larger organisations actively invest (when they can afford it) in research, innovation, publications and improving staff benefits......... .....................who? what? when? where? ........... never noticed it or heard of such...........as for the 'the improving of staff benefits' .....surely a joke ??????

The big charitable trusts within archaeology are answerable to their own board of trustees and operate under constitutions and under the regulations of the Charities Commission. The ultimate financial liability for the business is shouldered by the trustees. Some also operate research boards of one kind or another to oversee their research and publication interests.

Research and publication = my bookshelves which are covered with monographs from Oxford, Wessex, MoLAS etc, often the result of years of post-ex and coordinated research of a high quality in most instances. While it isn't the exclusive preserve of the bigger companies, they are very often the only organisations capable of underwriting those programmes and negotiating the funding directly from clients. They can (or at least could up until recently) adapt their surpluses and margins to cover otherwise less profitable publication programmes.

Innovation = It's only for large companies that I've worked for where we have consistently used GPS recording and smartphones or handhelds on site, for instance. Oxford has it's OADigital brand developing open-source software for archaeological purposes, although I'm not a big fan of some of it personally.

Staff benefits = the adoption of spinal point pay scales with profit linked annual percentage pay rises at some larger units. Recognition of union bargaining rights and representation. Staff consultation. CPD programmes. Flexible working arrangements where appropriate. The adoption of company policies to ensure consistent subsistence, accommodation and travel payments (now decreased with the regionalisation of a number of the larger companies, although I believe Oxford are still offering the same terms as they always have done - correct me if I'm wrong). Increase job security up until fairly recently.

Obviously, a lot of this has been put on hold or changed over the last year or two at some companies and we may not see it again if things don't pick up of competition doesn't ease a little, but I wouldn't say any of it was anything other than positive.

The key fact is that those positive moves were led by the bigger companies, enabled by their margins up until a couple of years ago and driven by the charitable trusts who don't have shareholders and are not-for-profit organisations and so eventually have to reinvest in either themselves or their charitable aims in some way or another (I'm open to correction here, it's just my perception). I'm also not suggesting I think having a market of only big companies is a positive answer.

I wonder whether, while they may hold a key as potential catalysts for positive change within archaeology, it's in any way useful to deride their presence in the market as wholly negative. I can't say that in my experience they seem any worse than anyone else in terms of dealing with the archaeology and, as Mr Wooldridge suggests, they may hold a more satisfactory answer than a hyper-competitive market of smaller firms tearing itself to shreds at the further expense of the workers.

[Unitof1]

But this is a battle between the individual and the state over archaeology. The state wants control over archaeology and to a large extent has it. Its greatest control is over the mindset of those that it controls working in it. The board of trustees in the case of mola which geothingys seems to think is responsible for financial doodarrs is mostly appointed by the Prime Minister. They have acts of parliament which are regularly amended. They set up ?offshore? companies (Manchester, Portsmouth- why Portsmouth?eh). And everybody sits around saying that they are an exemplary company. At what point dont you see the propaganda or say that?s normal ?we all must work under a board of trustees appointed by the Prime Minister if we want to dig a hole in the ground?. All the Spanish practises in this ?industry? have been produced by these pension grabbers. The very first and last creation of a charitable unit was a pension grabbers scam used to define the archaeology industry as basically non commercial and its not over. Its hilarious every time problems in archaeology are put down to being the product of capitalism. The poor fools working in these ?units? then further evolve the environment and create things like this -ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigation because they are at the cutting edge of commercialism. To my mind the only ones who can remotely blame capitalism for their poverty are the one man bands and no where in that equation can charity units or anybody working for them be considered friends or that the competition is going to be fair.

Just out of interest whats the point of this ?company? http://www.landward.eu/

[BAJR]

Ah, that is ex IfA Kenny Aitchison... doing what he did at IfA but a a consultant.

I did enjoy this line

[QUOTE][Unlike at the start of 2010, most businesses now expect conditions to be worse in the next year than better. The overwhelming majority of respondents expect some archaeological practices to cease trading in the next twelve months.
Even though some employers found it difficult to recruit fieldworkers, for the fifth quarter in succession the skills needed to conduct and contribute to invasive field investigation were reported as being those that were most frequently being lost.
/QUOTE]

Really :face-huh: and I wonder what companies are doing to keep fieldstaff?

[sadie]

The board of trustees in the case of mola which geothingys seems to think is responsible for financial doodarrs is mostly appointed by the Prime Minister. They have acts of parliament which are regularly amended.

Well I have resisted wading into this one up til now for obvious reasons- but this is uninformed rubbish to be honest.

MoLA's trustees are currently the same trustees as those at the Musuem of London, who are def not appointed by the PM- thank God (but why drag her into it?!).

And, to set another thing straight- MoLA aren't the only company to have set up 'offshore companies', in fact it could be argued that they are way behind the times with that idea. Do I sense some provincial paranioa creeping in...?

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for local expertise, both in terms of the archaeology, pottery types etc, as well as knowledge and experience of the methods needed to dig sites properly (eg urban deep strat). I am probably in a minority these days though. It may be that this offers more work for local finds specialists- or at least paves the way for decent local pottery type series etc.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=4]doing what he did at IfA but a a consultant
[/SIZE]

or could that possibly be like mola setting up a separate “company”

got this from “Archaeology and the global economic crisis” http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeology-and-the-crisis.pdf not sure where the funding came from

[SIZE=4]The archaeological profession in the UK is suffering in the present economic
climate. It has grown with the market and now has to shrink with the market,
but twenty years of experience of how to operate successful businesses means that
entrepreneurial attitudes and real business skills have become embedded within the
profession. These are the skills and attitudes that are being relied upon to maintain
archaeology’s position within the process of sustainable development.
[/SIZE]

They would know wouldn’t they what a "successful businesses means" or do they mean a company like this Landward Research Ltd is a social enterprise, a business with a commitment to social and environmental responsibility. Any profits are reinvested in the company and either donated to or invested in social and environmental causes.

Now that’s commercial isntit

Sadie -would you be surprised if the trustees were appointed by the PM?

[GPStone]

Unitof1 - If I'm honest, I don't understand where you're coming from with this. Are you suggesting there is some form of government conspiracy at play in the MoLA/MetroMoLA situation or in any of the larger archaeology companies? I think this government has proved they are very much interested in deregulated 'open' markets and are quite happy to let market forces take their course to achieve aims rather than interceding to manipulate or regulate them.......presumably they know how predictable these forces are and they have faith in where the market share will always end up and with that, the money and their share-values! I also doubt they have any great interest in archaeology beyond its contribution to the heritage industry and its impact on construction.

BAJR - Good point well made! I think companies seriously undervalue the talent and potential tied up in that experience and competency and that has big implications for everyone.

Sadie - I agree with you on local expertise, but I don't see any real reason why this can't be catered for within larger companies and there are some instances I've seen where it definately is.

The fact is, businesses will utilise standard/accepted commercial measures and actions in order to make themselves more viable. There's nothing tricky about it - if they are a business they will probably take actions that are entirely in-keeping or necessitated by the economics of their market/s in order to sustain or elevate their position. Whether they make money or not, businesses aren't intended to fail.

I'd be very interested to know what percentage of those employed in the archaeology industry are currently working for those companies that can be defined as large.