| |
|
|
In any project, a team is appointed to carry out a number of linked tasks to achieve predetermined objectives. These tasks will be planned to occur in a specific order within cost and time constraints. The purpose of project management is to ensure that the tasks undertaken are organised and monitored to achieve the required outcome. For archaeological projects the successful outcome is defined as a published report which accurately reflects the archaeological significance of the results, supported by a properly curated and accessible archive.
To set up and run any project effectively it is necessary:
These activities are fundamental to the model of archaeological project management which follows. Their specific application during each project phase is discussed in sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
in order to perform these activities successfully it will be necessary to employ a wide range of project management techniques. Detailed discussion of these is outside the scope of this document. Some of the techniques most relevant for archaeological project management are summarised at appendix 1.
Experience in English Heritage of archaeological project management has shown that the definition and consistent pursuit of objectives can be difficult. It is this problem which the proposed project management model is intended particularly to address. Objectives for archaeological projects must be defined and justified not only in practical, but also in academic terms. This academic justification must make clear the issues that the work will address, and the framework of academic priorities into which the project will fit. Due to the difficulty of predicting the potential of archaeological evidence, the original academic objectives may well need to be redefined more than once during the life of a project. To ensure that this redefinition is possible it is necessary to identify phases within a project, at the end of each of which the priorities of the project can be reconsidered and resources redirected appropriately. (These points are what the Cunliffe report called 'thresholds for review and forward planning').
This document identifies five principal phases through which a large archaeological field project would normally pass (see figure 1):
| phase 1 | project planning |
| Phase 2 | fieldwork |
| Phase 3 | assessment of potential for analysis |
| Phase 4 | analysis and report preparation |
| Phase 5 | Dissemination |
These phases, with the possible exception of phase 3, are familiar components of archaeological projects. However the emphasis on following a similar staged approach in each phase, culminating in a critical review at the end of each phase, is new.
As figure 2 shows, these stages form a repeated cycle of activities:
| Proposal | a proposal is put forward, defining and justifying the objectives to be met - this should give due consideration to the relevant academic priorities as well as practical considerations, and show the estimated cost of undertaking the work |
| Decision | Following consideration of the proposal as set out above, a decision is made as to whether or not the project should move to the data-collection stage. Where a positive decision is taken a budget should be set and appropriate resources made available |
| Data-collection | will implement the decision to proceed and result in the collection of appropriately documented data. The term data is here and throughout used in a broad sense to include site records, materials recovered from the site, and any results obtained from subsequent analysis |
| Review | Assesses the significance of the data collected, and gives consideration to the most appropriate next step |
The end result of each cycle may be the formulation of new or modified proposals, thus initiating another cycle at the next project phase. A proposal is the first stage of any project phase; however a phase will only begin once a positive decision to fund the work has been made. In practice therefore in phases 2, 3, and 4 the proposal is the final stage. Figure 1 has been drawn to reflect this.
Three review stages are identified in figure 1. At each of these the relevant project documentation is reviewed, allowing objectives to be redefined, the subsequent phase to be planned, and appropriate costs identified.
This cyclical process of data-collection and review, followed by selection, further study, and ultimately dissemination, is fundamental to the structure of an archaeological project. Formalising this process is important and will ensure that:
The system of regular review and follow-up will probably cause some hiatuses in the execution of a project. This will, however, be offset by the improved end-product, and the reduction of misdirected effort. With careful planning disruption can be reduced or mitigated. The following general principles should always be considered:
The funding of archaeological projects can vary. Ideally funding would be made available in blocks related to one or more of the five project phases. In practice, however, funding will be dependent on the internal policy of the project sponsor. Project budgets may be established on a once-and-for-all basis at the beginning of the fieldwork. Where this is the case the staged approach to project planning should still apply. Regular reviews will ensure that at each phase the balance of the project's fund is allocated appropriately.
Web Design: ©
Digital Archaeological
Reports
Last updated: Thu Oct 8 1998
