New Management Course

[oldgirl]

I've claimed on all previously, but thank goodness I don't have to do one any more. Plus I used to do PAYE and VAT as well.

I have to admit that the best info I got originally was from the local business link people. However, the course I did (and it was so long ago I can't remember when it was!) did include bits about setting up expenses/cash flow etc stuff, advertising, identifying your product etc. And the business plan stuff is important if you're applying for loans or grants, whether from govt bodies or banks.

As I said before, I think the course is designed as an introduction to many of the business things that we often don't learn as archaeologists, but it's not going to cover everything.

Anyway, I reckon everyones heard my opinion on this now and are probably heartily sick of it!

[SClarkP]

Well, I certainly appreciate your opinion Oldgirl because it's nice to have at least some discussion on the topic. I still come down on the side that archaeologists should do what they do best - archaeology, and let others (hopefully with background in archaeology)at least be the primary lead on finances and management.

Sara

[hurting-back]

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? They all seem to earn good wages, and their rates are not actually as high as you would think relative to their earnings.

Maybe a fundamental feature of many archaeologists is that they refuse to view what they do in a commercial setting due to their 'world-view' (for want of a better phrase), which is lovely if you don't mind poor pay and no respect....but if you want more money and a professional reputation then I'm afraid more serious engagement is needed.

That is why a course won't change much, not because it isn't useful (you can actually learn alot with a little instruction and reading relevant material), but because people won't, by and large, make use of it. If you think I am lying, then consider the fact that in much of the country it costs the same to have an archaeologist on a watching brief, staring at nothing much for an 8 hour day, as it does for the machine (with fuel, a driver paid more than the archaeologist, maintenance costs, the cost of the machine AND a profit for the company) for a 9 hour day.

I personally think that we aren't better managers because we can't be bothered; half of the CEOs of fortune 500 companies in the US have history majors......how are they better qualified than archaeologists for that type of post?

"don't panic!"

[hurting-back]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

I cant think of one.

What I imagine is I have just dug the site. I have filled in all my context sheets and ordered my archive. I have started some analysis but really I am more general field craft than Roman pot or curator. Is there anything in the situation for me to manage in a business sense.

I'm afraid I can think of a few:

1. 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.

2. Once you have ordered this, they will want to be paid, so you will need a business account of some sort to pay them which also means you will need to manage the cash flow of this account.

3. Even if you are working on a costs-reimbursable basis, then you will have to arrange an invoicing framework for sub-contracted work with your client that prevents you having to be out of pocket.

4. You may also want to be paid, so you will also need to have an invoicing procedure in place with your client.

5. Well, I could actually go on for a bit..:face-topic:...but I am sure everyone got bored a while back. Point is, you may already do much of this (or not need to depending on the specific circumstances of your example); but if you are or have done then congratulations! - because you are managing business processes.

Which makes two points:

1. Business and management processes are involved at any time someone performs any work or professional services for money; and

2. you don't need to produce lots of reports and charts and stuff to do it....any one can do it really (think of all the chip shops and small stores who have employees and business accounts and supply issues) provided they bother to think about it.

"don't panic!"

[the invisible man]

I very much agree with hurting-back (2315 post) but I wouldn't totally pooh-pooh all or any 'management' introductory courses. The point that the huge majority of businesses, whether professional or trade, manage perfectly well with no formal management training, or any realization that they are actually 'doing management' is very valid.

Doing a management course will not necessarily make you a good, or a better manager, and not doing one will not necessarily make you a bad one. There are plenty of good managers who haven't done a course and plenty of bad ones who have. There is merit though in an introductory course setting out some of the basics of tax, employment law, marketing, contract law, the dreaded business plans, VAT, even (I am sad to say) how to write formal letters and documents. If I was in a position to set up on my own I would certainly wish to do something of the sort.

Incidentally, architects do get something of the sort in their 'Professional Practice' which is the third and final part of the course, done part-time and necessary before qualification and use of the title Architect.

[Unitof1]

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

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: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.

[SClarkP]

" 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'm definately not implying you have to have an MBA, but background and experience, yes.

Further, ask these same doctors, architects, lawyers, etc doing both their job and management whether they like the situation. Most archaeologists, doctors, architects, etc want to be spending their time on archaeology, medicine, etc, not on management.

So my objection is twofold: 1. It always seems a waste to me to see great archaeologists having to spend time on marketing, finance, or other areas they have little aptitude for when they could be doing what they do best - archaeology. (this is not to say that PIs don't do project management, budget management, etc. I'm referring to management/business tasks beyond the usual set of PI duties) 2. It also seems a waste for potentially good companies to continually hurt their own bottom line because they can't or won't hire for business roles beyond archaeology.

Sara

[the invisible man]

It all rather depends on the size of the practice/firm.

[Unitof1]

For the glove to fit size counts

I think given the right support that archaeologists would be very good at the heritage business and at the individual level. Unfortunately the ifa could not give a monkeys for the individual apart from giving them the occasional trumped up meaningless kicking. It was born with its head firmly in an organisation paradigm. What is interesting is why it originally attempted to set itself up from an individual point of view-code of conduct- but has then spent the whole time trying to destroy the concept. So for instance the meaningless Areas of Competence membership game and nowadays we have this as its recommended list for mifa applicants


Examples of MIFA-level roles: County/District Archaeologist
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
Senior academic or tutor
HER/SMR Officer
Senior Archaeologist/Planning Archaeologist
Project Manager or Senior Project Officer
Senior specialist (e.g. finds, environmental archaeology, geophysics)
Senior buildings archaeologist
or an amateur (in the sense of unpaid) archaeologist with equivalent
responsibilities and experience

trowel not required and it?s the intimation from words like senior that they are people in an organizations (it looks like I could get in as an amateur).

Anyway back to the course (keep hosty happy) werent nvqs good enough

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...p?page=199

[oldgirl]

Just a reminder that areas of competence don't exist any more. Not commenting on anything else!