 |
 |
Crispin, Rob et al. In re. the problematic issue of SMR cost, I wonder whether you would be interested to know the capital resources (not the pounds and pence) that have gone into the Western Isles SMR over the past 12 months? As you know, there was nothing here at this time two years ago. One PC with maximum affordable spec. and printer. SMR software email/internet/office software One full time officer One half time volunteer for six months Two ad hoc volunteers software training Data capture from NMRS Data capture from one of two coastal erosion surveys. One large office One small office/store Three desks/tables Two plan chests Four filing cabinets Shelving Survey equipment Stationary, film & photocopying Remaining to be purchased: Photographic equipment (I'm using my own) Scanner GPS more software training Reference books &c. We are still really in the setting up stage, so I can't quantify ongoing maintenance resources. However, in response to some of Crispin's responses... 1. Consultations - I think that ideally, I would like to have a seperate computer for dealing with consultations. The volume of these is growing very rapidly as more people become aware of the service, and I expect that eventually demand will be too high for one person, and one computer, if the SMR is to be maintained properly. 2. Development/land management pressure - while I appreciate your points about development led demand and information provision, one should perhaps also consider that many areas, like ours, with low development threat, have extremely high threats and information feedback from other processes. Amongst these are forestry, farming (ploughing) and erosion, both coastal and inland. These are hugely demanding of SMR time, both on a consultation basis, and in relation to incoming information. Unfortunately, they are also extremely unproductive of income, unlike development. 3. SMR officers - I realise that English SMRs have increasingly moved towards greater specialisation of roles, and understand the pressures behind this. However, being multi-functional is a great advantage, particularly in a small region. Apart from making the SMR vulnerable to dangerous C5 drivers, alien abduction, holidays, and other acts of god, I am concerned that the single function SMR officer would perhaps be less aware of the broader picture of her/his area. And might get bored (never a good idea). Ideally, I would like at least one other member of staff full-time, with additional professional help as required (these are pipe dreams, you understand...). No one person should maintain an SMR, particularly with all the add-ons, education, public lectures &c, and CPD. Even in a small area, it's too demanding a job. Mary -----Original Message----- From: Crispin Flower <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: 24 November 1999 10:20 Subject: Re: How much does an SMR cost? >Rob (and all SMRs) - >I agree entirely that it is a sticky issue, but... >Your main point, that it is essentially not possible to generalise costs for >the maintenance of an SMR, is one I used to make regularly, the reasoning >being that it was all highly complicated and that the ideal was so far above >the achievable that we might as well carry on doing >the best we could with what we had (while always asking for more). BUT it >was put to me very persuasively that this is simply not an acceptable >stance, indeed that it was a typical manifestation of the immaturity of >archaeology as a profession >and public service!! >We are now seriously campaigning for proper SMR provision to at least a >common acceptable standard, and the 'piece of string' argument does not win >friends and influence people! NB there are still archaeologically rich areas >of Scotland that have no SMR. >Regarding your specific points: >- Consultations (planning apps, WGS, enquiries etc) - referring back to my >first message, I was really hoping to see these as separate from the SMR >maintenance, since, if we accept David Baker's advice, these functions >should be carried out by different staff. The line I am attempting to follow >(rightly or wrongly) is that the curatorial functions (like educational or >tourism etc functions) only have relevance to the SMR resource question in >the sense that they require access to the information systems, and that in >itself imposes some sort of multiplier cost. (NB - I would not attempt to >separate these in practical or functional terms - in my view the curatorial >process and the information systems which underpin it must be inextricably >linked, but I am still trying to assess the SMR resource requirements) >- In any case the issue of what should and should not be charged to clients, >and >how this should be calculated, is one of cost recovery and marketability, >and is not central to quantifying the resources required to maintain the SMR >itself. >- Your point that we cannot standardise pay rates, overheads etc is fair >enough - I'm looking to identify required staff and resources rather than >pounds and pence as such. Guidance rather than prescription. >- You advise to consider the development/land management pressure. I accept >that this is relevant to the resources required to run the SMR, because more >development/archaeology means more info to recycle into the SMR, but how do >we do this at a national level? WoSAS already does this in great detail for >our eleven Councils based on consultations etc, but is it possible across >Britain? Where can we get statistics about numbers/types of planning apps >submitted, numbers of archaeological interventions etc? >- The point that software and hardware costs may be covered by the hosting >body may be true for some, but they are still real quantifiable costs which >have to be borne by LAs in order to provide this public function. I am >trying to identify total >resource requirements. >- overall you suggest that one full time SMR officer is what's required, and >the definition of critical mass in area which can keep that person busy. >This is broadly in line with DB's advice. But this makes me very uneasy for >a number of reasons. >1 - I certainly can't cope on my own (but then we do cover an extremely >large area with high development pressure) >2- what about career development? If each archaeology service has one and >only one SMR >officer, how does anyone learn/develop? Career structure - where does this >specialised SMR officer come from/go next? >3 - this places great reliance on an individual within each service, with no >fallback if they are run over by >a Sinclair C5. >4 - is one person really enough for any decent-sized area - to do all >accessions, outreach, linkages, projects etc? Are there any SMRs out there >where one person maintains a perfect SMR? >Any ideas anyone...? >Crispin > >West of Scotland Archaeology Service >Charing Cross Complex >20 India Street >Glasgow G2 4PF >Tel: 0141 287 8332-5 >Fax: 0141 287 9529 >email: [log in to unmask] >The Archaeology Service of the Councils of Argyll & Bute, East Ayrshire, >East Renfrewshire, Glasgow City, Inverclyde, >North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South >Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire. >----- Original Message ----- >From: Babtie Reading Archaeology <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 11:39 AM >Subject: Re: How much does an SMR cost? > > >> Dear Crispin, >> >> This is a very sticky issue. The main issues that we have had to face in >Berkshire where the six local authorities directly pay for the archaeology >service is how much does a consultation cost (i.e. per planning application, >SMR enquiry, etc.,) and how much does SMR maintenanace cost. The actual >answer is 'how long is a piece of string?' >> >> The issues with consultations are: >> >> 1 What do you define as a consultation? Is it dealing with 1 planning >application from start to finish, no matter how complicated it is. If you >do this, a simple consultation taking half an hour would cost the same as >one that involves writing briefs for evaluation & excavation, monitoring the >fieldwork & post-ex process, writing committee papers if required, etc. It >has to be remembered that some consultations could take place over a number >of years and so therefore a consultation needs to be fairly tightly defined, >if it is not, a local authority would have very little idea what they are >being charged for and therefore the possibilty of unnecessary disputes >arises. >> >> 2 SMR enquiries would also have to be carefully defined especially if you >already have a charging policy. If you are charging external bodies for >consulting the SMR how can you also charge the hosting authority for that >too? If you do charge, you have to be very clear what you are charging for >and also wether it actually covers your costs or wether it is a nominal >figure. >> >> 3 Once consultations have been defined, the next problem is how much does >each one cost. This is obviously dependent on charge out rates, >multipliers, overheads, etc. This can only be sorted out by the >organisation running the archaeological service. I do not think that >setting a standard for this is either feasible or advisable - each >organisation has to cover different costs, has different rates of pay & mult >ipliers, and in any case, it would run the risk of looking like a closed >shop or even worse a cartel. >> >> The best advice I can give you is to consider the development/land >management pressure, numbers of consultations received, average length of >time spent on a consultation, etc. We have priced our work in Berkshire >using various formulas that take into account such things, however, these >are obviously commercially sensitive and therefore I cannot divulge them. >If you want to discuss such things though please give me a ring (0118 >9881611). >> >> As to the maintenance of the SMR, you have already covered some of the >issues i.e. software and hardware costs. However, surely most of these >costs are covered by the hosting body anyway? As to the cost of >maintenance, this really is 'how long is a piece of string.' It is surely >dependant on how well developed the database is already, gaps in the data, >etc., as you have already pointed out. The main issue is really that the >SMR should cover an area large enough or one that generates a lot of data >(i.e. high development pressure) to support an SMR post. If that is the >case, the cost of maintenance is the salary of 1 dedicated SMR officer + >overheads/multiplier. Again this will vary depending on the organisation as >salaries & grades vary. >> >> I hope that this is of some help. As I have said, please feel free to >ring me if you want to discuss this issue further - believe me, from >personla on-going experience this issue is a total minefield - tread with >extreme care!. >> >> Rob Bourn >> > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%