JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  October 2003

BRITARCH October 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Winchester Archaeology Unit

From:

Paul Everill <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:38:38 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

Sadly this is not a new phenomenon. Let's remember that Competitive
Tendering and majority Developer funding have been an aspect
of 'Commercial' Archaeology since the end of the 1980's. Every now and then
one of the old regional units folds completely or is subsumed within the
machinery of one of the "Mega-Corporates" (Whose success, let's not forget,
is not due to better archaeological practice but often it is opportunistic
management and the financial resources to soak up the pressures of
competitive tendering) but there is only ever a ripple amongst the
archaeological community when this happens.

There are of course a few 'notorious' units who probably deserve a bit of a
shake-up and many more who would benefit from better management, but to
have 3 or 4 uber-units running the whole show will be bad for the
profession and bad for the archaeology.

Ultimately, however, we have ourselves to blame for the current situation
as every "crisis" is met with almost unilateral apathy by the vast majority
of those employed within the profession.

We now have more opportunities to have our say than ever before, but unless
we start getting involved en masse we face the stark reality of looking
back in 10 years time and mourning the loss of all the old "regional" units
and a whole lot more.

       Paul


On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:44:10 -0700, George Chaplin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hi Kevin,
>
>"Does anyone really believe that in not too many
>years time, the whole of archaeology in England
>won't be monopolised by just 3 or 4
>mega-corporates? Perhaps this lack of diversity
>may not be to the overall benefit of the
>profession?"
>
>Yes this might be the outcome of the current changes in the structure of
our
>archaeological units. A process that may be accelerated by developer led
>archaeology and the way the bidding process works. In order to win a bid
the
>unit has to undercut the competition. As I see it (and don't claim to be an
>expert) there are no benchmark standards as to what work is essential in
>performing an archaeological investigation (Although I fully agree with the
>statement that most archaeologists attempt to employ the highest standards
>they can with regards to their work, and also am not sure that the concept
>of standards works in this field). Without minimum standards, their will
>always be financial pressure on the unit to cut work standards in order to
>secure work. This will keep units "alive" in the short term, but will
>eventually lead to staff reductions and a failure to keep up with
>technological advances.
>
>Just to clarify what I mean by example - many evaluations call for a
certain
>amount of fieldwalking, in a tender response, two organisations could
return
>with exactly the same description of how they would perform that work, but
>the one that assumed the lowest amount of effort by the cheapest labour
>would get that work. Many developers would prefer it that research is
>skimped rather than thorough, thus they may tend to select purely on lowest
>price. This being the case, and without a specific minimum standard
>(assuming one could be found) to stick to, the pressure on the unit will be
>to drop standards in order to stay in business. Without the council or
other
>body to provide the financial security then the unit on it's own will have
>great difficulty in this environment.
>
>This may well lead to a consolidation down to just a few units, who are
able
>to deliver the economies of scale to stay in business and up to date.
>
>As to this being good or bad for the profession I'm not sure, I think it
>would lead to less jobs in the medium term at least. Also this does not
take
>into account the universities, who should not be ignored.
>
>Just some idle thoughts.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager