New Management Course

[BAJR Host]

quote:all mine have to be partners who hold on to their copyright and it all gets so complicated... nobody understands whats going on

quite... [:p]

Think about it... :face-huh:... grow up and cheer up...





"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[SClarkP]

..This means that the scope of any work done ... is tied up in a complex system where interpretations have a material impact on the level of work done. It would not be sensible to introduce a non-archaeologist to this, as an archaeological backgroun...


Of course. I would not disagree with the point that archaeologists should be involved with the SOW (in fact, I've argued that archaeologists at all levels of the project should be MORE involved). Also, having done my share of proposals and costs as well, it just ain't all that complex most of the time

I'm going beyond SOW, to actual management. What is your structure for managing a project; how do you measure success (from a profit/loss viewpoint); how do you improve your actions or learn from mistakes; what goals do you set on each project for time, money, personnel; where do you stand with your profit forecasts from year to year, are you hitting them, do you even have them? Those are the kinds of management questions that I think should be part of CRM and that I never see.


...Also, having a non-archaeological finance director won't make much difference as it is the operational management which will determine the turnover and profitability of the company...

Having a finance director that doesn't know what they're doing can run a company into the ground and/or get them into tax problems quicker than you can say CFO, regardless of the quality of operational management (although I would question the management that put that person in place, and have.) Further, a good finance director can make a huge impact on profitability! It's their job to point out overages, tax loopholes, money management, investments, etc.

So, presumably the next point is that "they can be an archaeologist and still be a good financial director". I'm sure such a person exists, but if you want a really good financial director, would you rather see that they have an MA in archaeology and 6 years of field work with a course in accounting, or that they have a minor in archaeology from undergrad and 5 years working under a CFO at an engineering firm?

Sara

[hurting-back]

SClarkP,

Sorry, but the questions you have outlined are a part of every day project management when managing large scale archaeological projects. Most project managers for larger units here will tell you (not enthusiastically to be fair), of a stream of meetings they will have attended addressing these very issues.

And it is those questions which are so difficult to answer in an industry where you can find large variability in the level of work required to discharge a planning condition depending on the interpretations used. This means that profit targets must be very sympathetic to more than just market conditions, but to the whims of archaeological interpretation. And building in this flexibility is simply not possible without a serious understanding of the industry.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between the archaeological industry and most others with which we compare ourselves: commercial archaeology is, by its very nature, a high turnover business. Meaning that we don't sell stocks and shares or provide lots of building materials, and as such the 'tax loopholes' which can be explored are relatively limited (here mostly to do with expenses deductions and VAT, which is tricky, but doesn't require a finance degree to understand). The vast majority of the financial return for the business therefore comes from having lots of archaeologists on the ground doing work. Which means your finance director can fiddle with tax loopholes all they want, but if a large project overruns they won't be able to rustle up extra cash from the client without understanding the contractual basis of the work, and this is inevitably tied up in the aforementioned web of archaeological interpretion and value statements. And I am afraid the engineering CFO wouldn't have much to say on the matter, and so the company incurs a massive loss because you have all your archaeologists staring a bits of pottery and leaving the 'real management' to the finance and managment professionals who have been doing us all so many favours in the world ecomony recently.

This is what I mean when making the statement about the importance of operational management in determining the profitability of an archaeological unit. The finance director can have as un-archaeological a background as you would like, but the situation would still require an operational / contracts manager with a good understanding of business AND archaeological practice to resolve such a situation. Moreover, there are plenty of small businesses out there getting along just fine without a finance director at all....like small law firms, small architects and planning consultants, small building firms, plant companies....the list goes on really.

"don't panic!"

[Unitof1]

Profit in archaeology.
Should there be any and who should it be for. I suggest that working in a system dominated by Not for Profit organisations and civil servants that anybody slightly looking at archaeology from a profit motive will be immediately accused of overcharging the client particularly in a system dependant on the enforcement of polluter pays. Looking at Hostys salary scale what you are see is the nearest there is for Profit (personalised) for Not for Profit organisations, presumably organisations that have a steady and reliable turnover. The client pays for expenses to do archaeology as well as the pay for archaeologists to do the archaeology. So where does an archaeologist fit in. Hostys range of weekly rates varies from 265 to 600 pounds. It has no one highlighted as an archaeologist. So there is no one for a good finance director to work for or rather each pay level would want something different from a finance director. This beast spends a proportion of its time doing things such as getting new work, doing fieldwork, producing a product, organising its finances and going on holiday. It self manages, it can take some advise but it does not require anybody else. Its all team until the work dries up.

In my world I have limits like I cant be digging in two different fields at the same time or undertake any two functions at the same time as I am male. But what should I charge if I want to use the description archaeologist. This is where the ifa falls down for me. It seems to want individuals to join but to then follow a collective retirement structure. Hosty and I have absolutely no problem with not being in it. It is of no consequence to the individual archaeologist. I really don?t know how it finances its self. It?s a limited company. It seems to hang out in universities and gets its conferences and various activities sponsored. Why would anybody pay fees to it. I mean do most of it members pay the fee or are they being paid for by employers. Hosty, do mounties get their membership fees paid? Were yours being paid whilst you worked for the council?

[Oxbeast]

Councils will not pay membership fees on the grounds that it is not a requirement of anyone's job to be a mamber of the IFA. Presumably they pay the professional association fees of their accountants, the chartered ones anyway.

[SClarkP]

hurting-back -

You seem intent on pursuing an either/or argument. My point has never been that to include proper management skill sets by adding one or more personnel, you must then by default eliminate all archaeologist input. I suggest, rather, that while an all-archaeologist run company can do a good job, is just doing "good" good enough?

Why not include at the highest level one or more employees with an actual background in management and/or business outside CRM? They might actually bring some new insights to the industry if they can get past the walls built by overly defensive PIs and CRM hardliners.

Don't get so fixated on the "tax loopholes" example. Think instead of a CRM company that properly directed could bring in multiple revenue streams. Perhaps even have a strategy of going after field work AND non-field work jobs (in the States, I mean advisory jobs for state and fed agencies as an example). A company could develop a deeper public outreach arm (a la Statistical Research Inc) or other ventures.

No industry is perfect and CRM is certainly no exception. Just consider that there may actually be room for the industry to grow and develop and that useful input could actually come from non-archaeologists. Anything is possible What can we take from other industries to improve field tech education, fair wages, out-of-the-box mitigation ideas, etc? However great a company may be (yours or others') I think there is always room for improvement and better use of CRM to the benefit of the general public (instead of just wasting their money on reports no one ever sees).

Sara

[historic building]

My lovely employer does not pay my IFA fees. It does,however, pay the IHBC fees for Conservation Officers and RTPI (royal town planning institute) fees for planners and also the necessary fees for the various architects dotted around the place. Some people get all three paid. We are currently in a very long running and very bitter dispute about this.

[hurting-back]

Hello Sara,

Well I have to say I agree with your last post, which feels different from previous arguments ("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."). I would still say that great care would need to be taken as to the role of a non-archaeologist in an archaeological unit when it comes to management; marketing or finance can be fine, but operational management roles would need careful defining as a lack of detailed knowledge could cause problems.

So I wouldn't say I am advocating an either / or approach, but rather saying that many of the management tasks you outlined as being good for a non-archaeologist manager, would actually require archaeological imput and experience to be done properly.

My question is "why do so many archaeologists seem to think they can't handle these issues?". They are not hard to grasp.....maybe this course will help many realise this........

"don't panic!"

[Unitof1]

Sorry to hear about any long running dispute Historic Buildings. Have you tried to give examples of curators who do get their subs paid? I have tried going through the charity accounts but descriptions such as Subscriptions or Legal and Professional fees does not make it very clear whether this is the standard practise in the charity units. All self-employeds would put it in under legal and professional fees as an expense before tax

A possible trick might be to get registered as an RAO! That way you would need at least one member on the team (although apparently they can have exemptions but you would still be in). Have other curator set ups tried this. I would be surprised that the ifa has not considered this cunning plan and might need algao to be one too (oh the price of identity). Its new set of membership competences (sorry oldgirl) seem to rate highly Curators as archaeologists so should also rate their organisations as archaeological. Not sure what you would put down as turnover.

[med]

Seems to me that with no or limited skills with which to manage a business owners and employees all suffer eventually. Financial training can help business perform in a more competitive market and those without such training might find it useful in their personal lives as well.

Noting the cost of the one-day training at 200 pounds, it also seems to me that U of Leicester and Walof Associates HAVE found a way that 'will help them successfully steer a way through the rapidly approaching market recession'.