U.S. METRIC STUDY

INTERIM REPORT

NONMANUFACTURING

BUSINESSES

U.S. METRIC STUDY
U.S METRIC SUBSTUDY REPORTS

The results of substudies of the U.S. Metric Study, while being evaluated

for the preparation of a comprehensive report to the Congress, are being

published in the interim as a series of NBS Special Publications. The titles of the individual reports are listed below.

REPORTS ON SUBSTUDIES

NBS SP345-1: International Standards (issued December 1970, SD

Catalog No. CI 3.10:345-1, price $1.25)

NBS SP345-2: Federal Government: Civilian Agencies (issued July

1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-2, price $2.25)

NBS SP345-3: Commercial Weights and Measures (issued July 1971,

SD Catalog No. CI 3. 10: 345-3, price $1.00)

NBS SP345-4: The Manufacturing Industry (issued July 1971, SD

Catalog No. C13. 10:345-4, price $1.25)

NBS SP345-5: Nonmanufacturing Businesses (this publication)

NBS SP345-6: Education (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No.

C13. 10:345-6, price $1.75)

NBS SP345-7: The Consumer (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No.

CI 3. 10: 345-7, price $1.25)

NBS SP345-8: International Trade (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No.

C13.10: 345-8, price $1.50)

NBS SP345-9: Department of Defense (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-9, price $1.25)

NBS SP345-10: A History of the Metric System Controversy in the

United States (in press)

NBS SP345-11: Engineering Standards (issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-11, price $2.00)

NBS SP345-12: Testimony of Nationally Representative Groups

(issued July 1971, SD Catalog No. C13. 10:345-12,

price $1.50)

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE U.S METRIC STUDY

NBSSP345: To be published in August 1971

Those publications with catalog numbers have already been issued, and

may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 for the prices indicated. Add onefourth of the purchase price if the publication ordered is to be sent to a for- eign address. Be sure to include the SD Catalog number with your order.
U.S. METRIC STUDY

INTERIM REPORT

NONMANUFACTURING

BUSINESSES

Fifth in a series of reports prepared

for the Congress

U.S. METRIC STUDY

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

National Bureau of Standards

Special Publication 345-5

by June R. Cornog and Elaine D. Bunten UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 345-5, 200 pages (July 1971)

CODEN: XNBSA

Issued July 1971

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.10:345-5), Price $1.50 Stock Number 0303-0898

10NAL SU&fiU OF STA8BA8Q3

SEP 7 1971 a^tf.- Ref>

& C /o 0

/V6,3tT-^

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

SIRS:

I have the honor to present the fifth in the series of interim reports stem- ming from the U.S. Metric Study, prepared by the National Bureau of Standards.

This Study was authorized by Public Law 90-472 to reduce the many

uncertainties concerning the metric issue and to provide a better basis upon

which the Congress may evaluate and resolve it. I shall make a final report to the Congress on this Study in August 1971.

In the meantime, the data and opinions contained in this interim report are being evaluated by the Study team at the National Bureau of Standards. My

final report to you will reflect this evaluation.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretary of Commerce

Enclosure

iii
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Honorable Maurice H. Stans

Secretary of Commerce

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I have the honor to transmit to you another interim report of the U.S. Metric Study, which is being conducted at the National Bureau of Standards

at your request and in accordance with the Metric Study Act of 1968.

The Study is exploring the subjects assigned to it with great care. We have

tried to reach every relevant sector of the society to elicit their views on the metric issue and their estimates of the costs and benefits called for in the Metric Study Act. Moreover, all of these sectors were given an opportunity

to testify in the extensive series of Metric Study Conferences that were held

last year. On the basis of all that we have been able to learn from these conferences,

as well as the numerous surveys and investigations, a final report will be

made to you before August 1971 for your evaluation and decision as to any

recommendations that you may wish to make to the Congress.

The attached interim report includes data and other opinions that are still being evaluated by us to determine their relationship and significance to all of the other information that has been elicited by the Study. All of these evaluations will be reflected in the final report.

Sincerely,

Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

National Bureau of Standards

Enclosure

iv
FOREWORD

This report is based on a sample survey of U.S. nonmanufacturing businesses, ranging from agriculture to zoological gardens. Respondents were asked

a wide variety of questions concerning Public Law 90—472, the Metric Study

Act.Reports covering the manufacturing industry and other aspects of the U.S. Metric Study are listed on the inside front cover. All of these, including this report, are under evaluation. They are published without prejudice to the comprehensive report on the entire U.S. Metric Study, which will be sent

to the Congress by the Secretary of Commerce in August of 1971.

The Nonmanufacturing Survey was carried out by Miss Elaine D. Bunten

under the direction of Dr. June R. Cornog, both of the Behavioral Sciences

Section of the Technical Analysis Division in the National Bureau of Standards. Other members of the National Bureau of Standards staff who assisted

in the preparation of the sample and other parts of the Survey were Dr. Howard E. Morgan, Mr. William O'Neal, Mrs. Lorraine Freeman, and Mrs.

Diane Beall. The firm of Bickert, Browne and Coddington carried out the actual field interviewing.

We are grateful to the 2,563 businesses in the nonmanufacturing sample

who contributed their time and knowledge to help make this report possible. In this as in all aspects of the U.S. Metric Study, the program has benefited from the independent judgment and thoughtful counsel of its advisory

panel and the many other organizations, groups, and committees that have

participated in the Study.

Daniel V. De Simone, Director

U.S. Metric Study

v

CONTENTS

Page

Letters of Transmittal iii, iv

Foreword v Summary of Conclusions 1

Section I. Background 4

The Need for a National Study 4

Objectives and General Methodology 5 Sources and Methods of Data Collection 6

Refusal Rate 7

Organization of This Report 7 Special Subsample Groups 8

Section II. General Discussion of Survey Findings 14

Knowledge of Metric Characteristics 14

Sources of Metric Information 14

Differences in Responses by Organization Size 15

Costs and Benefits of Metrication 15

Imports 16

Foreign Competition in the U.S 16

Metric Goods Usage in the U.S 16

Metric Equipment in the U.S 16

Dual Dimensioning 17 Future Conversion to Metric 17

Advantages to Possible Metrication 17

Disadvantages to Possible Metrication 17

Length of Possible Conversion Period 18

A 10-Year Planned Program of Changeover 18

The Characteristics of a Possible Planned Metrication Program . . 18

Attitudes Toward Increased Metric Usage Within Own Companies 19

Increased Metric Usage and the Best National Interest 19

Preferable Course of Action in Possible Conversion 20

Critique of Study Results 20

vii
via

Section III. Questionnaires 22

Initial Contact Interview 22

Second Interview 32

Section IV. Detailed Discussion of Tables for All Questions 56

Questionnaire IIA and IIB. Current Use of Measurement Systems in Company Outputs 63

Questionnaire III. Current Use of

Measurement Systems in Company Inputs 92

Questionnaire IV. Future Use of Metric Measurement 109

Appendix A. Methodology and Sample 165

Appendix B. Summary of Results 176

Appendix C. Original Tabulations for All Questions. (Only available

from NTIS under COM-7 1-00689.)
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

The essence of the findings from the survey of reactions among nonmanufacturing establishments in the United States towards possible national adoption of the metric system of measurement, is presented in the following conclusions. For full discussion see the appropriate sections of the report.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Accurate knowledge of metric system characteristics was not universal.

About 75 percent of the respondent spokesmen answered questions on the

basis of what may be considered to have been adequate background information; approximately 12 percent of these had thorough knowledge of metric

measurement. Since people in general tend to fear what they do not fully

understand, the general lack of acquaintance with the details of metric meas- urement may have resulted in over-estimation of the costs of conversion and

the employee retraining needs.

2. There were few significant differences in opinion between companies

grouped in three size categories. The largest organizations tended to be more

favorable toward adoption of SI, 1 to feel a need for a longer changeover

1 The term "SI" stands for Systeme International, the current term and abbreviation for the inter- national version of the metric system which would be adoped if the United States Congress decided

to change the present system of measurement.

1
2 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

period, and to favor more often a mandatory national program of metrication

established by legislative action, than smaller companies did.

3. A majority of the respondents in the nonmanufacturing survey foresaw no particular difficulty in converting to the metric system.

4. About 26 percent of the total sample was "against" increased metric

usage within their own companies in case of a national metric changeover.

5. The retraining of labor was seen as the chief obstacle to conversion.

6. Organizations with export trade or foreign licensees or subsidiaries

(11% of total sample) and those which were currently using metric-designed

equipment or tools (17%) were significantly more often favorable towards

national adoption of metric measurement than was the survey population at large.

7. The vast majority of the companies contacted saw no reason to change

their system of measurement unless the whole U.S. does. Their chief reason

for continuing their use of the present system was "tradition" but, even

though they recognized the greater simplicity and ease of use of metric measurement, they had no intention of increasing their own use without the rest of at least their own industry.

8. Despite the statement of the majority, a small (6%) number of

respondents declared their intention to begin using or to increase their use of SI within the next year or so. Their stated reasons for doing so were chiefly

to "improve the quality" of their output, ease international commerce or meet foreign competition.

9. Being designed or fabricated to metric measurements or standards does

not keep foreign produced goods from being widely sold in the United States, especially those items such as textiles, ceramics, glass, etc., which do not

require mechanical servicing. Such goods are competitive in the U.S. with

merchandise or services produced to U.S. measurements for domestic con- sumption.

10. The most satisfactory kind of metric goods in the U.S. economy are those which can be sold as units, i.e., equipment, tools or other items for which dimensions can be translated into U.S. equivalents and where close mechanical interface with equipment designed to U.S. engineering standards

is not required.

11. Servicing of foreign produced metric items is the worst problem associated with their purchase and use in the U.S. but many foreign producers

have set up or are now setting up their own servicing agencies in this country. The same difficulty, said the distribution industry, affects U.S. goods in other nations where the official measurement system is metric.

12. U.S. produced goods are at a particular disadvantage in countries

which require that all imported merchandise conform to the official measurement system.

13. A majority of industry members expected no change in costs as a

result of metrication. Of those who expected a change in costs, a majority,

especially among the smaller organizations, anticipated a rise in costs of
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 3

operation about 0.5 percent a year for the duration of the changeover period.

A majority did not expect to pass this cost on to the consumer.

14. Respondents with little or no personal knowledge of metric measure- ment anticipated the most problems and the highest costs in retraining company employees.

15. A national changeover period of from 6 to 10 years was considered

satisfactory by most respondents, but individual industry conversion estimates were mostly for 5 years or less. 16. Sixty-one percent of all respondents thought that increased metric

usage was in the best interests of the nation; a majority in all industries sup- ported such a national change.

17. The majority (62%) favored a "mandatory national program of conversion, based on legislation." Large corporations were more often favorable

to such a metrication policy than were small or medium organizations but

each size class showed a majority in favor of a mandatory program.

18. The opinion was occasionally volunteered that the U.S. is already too

late in undertaking the adoption of metric measurement, that every effort should be made to "catch up" with the rest of the world as soon as possible.

No figures are available to show the breadth of this sentiment since no

formal question was asked on this point.
SECTION I. Background

THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL STUDY

Interest in a possible change of the measurement system used in the United States is not new. Advocates of the metric system have worked over a period of nearly 170 years to introduce their preferred system of measure- ment into this country. In 1866 the Congress was persuaded to authorize use

of the metric system, total changeover being deemed unnecessary and too expensive at that time. Several events in recent years have stimulated renewed Congressional

interest in the metric issue. With the exception of the United States, all other

major countries using English units have within the last 5 years decided to abandon that system in favor of metric measurement. Other members of the

British Commonwealth are following England's example—Australia and New

Zealand are embarking on their conversion program and Canada declared in 1970 its intention to follow suit. Before these recent events, the U.S. Congress, observing the trend of world

events had, through Public Law 90-472, commissioned the Department of Commerce, and through it the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), to make

a study of the benefits, estimated costs and problems involved in adopting

increased usage of the metric system in this country. There have been over a

4
BACKGROUND 5

dozen separate surveys and investigations in the metric study. The present

report is concerned with the nonmanufacturing establishments and presents

the results of a survey of a random sample of the approximately 1 1 million

business, professional and other organizations in the nonmanufacturing population.

OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL METHODOLOGY

Other portions of the Metric Study obtained information relating to manufacturing firms, foreign trade, education, government agencies, consumers,

engineering standards, commercial weights and measures, nationally representative associations, societies, unions and other groups. The study reported

in this volume was designed to cover the remainder of the nonmanufacturing

sectors of the economy, those described in the Standard Industrial Classifica- tion Manual 1 as

Division A—Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries

B—Mining

C—Contract Construction

E—Transportation; Communication; Electric, Gas and Sanitary

Services;

F—Wholesale and Retail Trade

G—Finance, Insurance and Real Estate H—Business and Personal Services

These industries include about 65 percent of the total U.S. employment

and represent a wide variety of economic activities. Many of these industries produce and sell only services, some sell only goods and many sell both. This

wide variation in the kinds of businesses included here made the use of a standard interviewing form difficult. In consequence, some compromises had

to be made to obtain reasonably comparable results. This portion of the Metric Study does, however, give a broad perspective of the kinds of problems which might arise with metrication, based on opinions from people in many different kinds of economic activity. The only acknowledgement of var- iance in the activities of the sample population was the asking of a few more

slightly differently phrased questions of sales- and service-oriented respondents

than of those which were product-oriented.

Conversion to the metric system of measurement assumes different aspects

for the nonmanufacturing groups than for those in the business of producing

the goods. The manufacturer of mechanical equipment, for example, has face- to-face encounters every day with engineering standards and the need for precise measurements of his products. A measurement system is integral to the heart of his operation.

The nonmanufacturer, on the other hand, services, processes, trades in, or may only use the manufacturer's goods. As the servicer he will need tools

1 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, U.S. Bureau of the Budget. Washington, D C. ; Government Printing

Office, 1967.
6 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

that fit the product and replacement parts or components that can be fitted into place with minimal adjustment. As a trader or processor he may package the goods, put identifying labels on, pack them in certain sizes of boxes

for shipment, describe boundaries, sell by weight, volume, temperature or thermal content, or change the shape, size or appearance of natural produce

such as food or mineral extractions. As a user of goods he can choose to employ either U.S. or metric sized instruments or materials and still arrive at the same end of carrying out his own internal operations.

The user who employs products to render a service for others, such as the construction of a building or highway, is faced with the constraint of erecting or laying out his project either in the locally accepted measurement system or

the one best understood and used by his workers. Some of his equipment will be insensitive to precise measurements—the earth moved by the bulldozers,

the amount of concrete laid for a highway—but if window apertures are several millimeters different in size from standard steel frames for holding the

glass, then adjustments must be made and extra costs are incurred. The

nonmanufacturing industry does not often need measurements for fabrication but rather is faced with having to accommodate to what is produced

by the manufacturers.

The data accumulated in the survey indicated that those industries which

could control something about their product other than sheer number of

units, were apparently adopting metric measurement in appreciable numbers.

Because the Agricultural group must deal with the sizes nature produces and

the Retail Trades handle only units produced by other organizations, the amount of metrication possible in these industry groups is mostly limited to the determination of sizes or weights for bulk shipments. Mining services and

Construction have more option about measurements for goods or services exported and they seemed to be turning to the metric system in small but

increasing proportions.

SOURCES AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

Information was obtained from the nonmanufacturing industries through

telephone interviews with key persons in 2563 business firms and nonprofit

organizations. Letters requesting cooperation were sent in advance and two

telephone calls were made, one call prior to sending descriptive literature about the metric system and one call after its receipt. Approximately 82 per- cent of the respondents were managers or owners of firms although some of

these were not always as knowledgeable about the likely impact of metrication

as others in the firm would have been. Cooperation was good—90 percent of

the attempted interviews were completed.

A probability sample was drawn to permit estimates of sampling error to be derived. From the master file of approximately six million employers

maintained by the Social Security Administration, a quota sample of firms,

farms and nonprofit organizations was drawn to represent the nonmanufacturing sector of the economy. The sample was stratified by size of firm (based on number of employees) and industry group. Establishments surveyed in 86
BACKGROUND 7

industries were classified into 3 size categories to permit analysis of the impact of metrication on large versus small firms and among various industries. A more detailed description of the source and methods of data collection appears in Appendix A.

REFUSAL RATE

Respondent refusal rate was exceptionally low—only 10 percent of those

contacted declined to be interviewed and only 1 percent refused to go along

with the second interview after having been asked the initial attitudinal questions in Phase I. Quality control of both interviewing and questionnaire completion was excellent. All interviewing was done under immediate supervision

and where an answer was either omitted or unclear the respondent could be

called again to obtain complete information. The validation that usually

accompanies marketing research interviews was not necessary. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

The questionnaire sought information in the following areas:

a. Knowledge of or about the metric system, attitudes toward increased

national usage of metric measurement;

b. Company "outputs"—the products or services as a result of company activities;

c. Company "inputs"—the equipment and procedures used in conducting the organization business.

d. Hypothetical future use of metric measurement, the expected problems and benefits of conversion.

Data analysis follows the same general outline as that of the questionnaire.

In the text, significant analysis of the survey data is presented first with

methodology descriptions being relegated to Appendices. The conclusions

derived from the data analysis are given first, to accommodate the curious

reader who has insufficient time to read the entire report.

Section I outlines the problem addressed by the survey and gives a brief sketch of the methodology employed in carrying out the survey. A more

detailed description will be found in appendix A.

Section II offers a general discussion of the major findings with interpretations and a drawing together of the general themes of the inquiry. Not all of

the findings are discussed in section II; for further and more succinct review

of other relevant information, see appendix B where a summary prepared for one of the Advisory Panel meetings is reproduced.

Section III contains copies of the questionnaires, the key to easy location

of particular information.

Section IV presents the detailed analysis and discussion of the data for each question or related group of questions. This material is keyed to the Question and Table numbers.
8 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Appendix C contains the data tabulations in the computer printout form.

Data have been analyzed in several ways:

a. By the sample as a whole;

b. By employer size class;

c. By 13 industry groupings;

d. By 7 industry divisions (for certain analyses only)

e. By annual gross dollar sales volume (for certain questions only )

f. By suggested lengths of metrication change-over period (for certain questions only)

These special interest groupings are more fully defined immediately following.

SPECIAL SUBSAMPLE GROUPS

Throughout the detailed discussions in the next section, data are presented

in terms of the total sample population and, at times, in terms of specific

subsample groups. These subsample groups have been selected on the pre- sumption that their responses may be distinctive due to the occupational

characteristics identifying the group. TOTAL SAMPLE POPULATION. The total sample was made up of 2563

firms selected randomly in quotas from the entire list of nonmanufacturing

firms in the Social Security Administration file. Main criteria were selection by size, based on number of employees, and industry type as identified by

the 4—digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) number. (See appendix

for complete discussion of sample selection.)

A. SIZE GROUPS. Responses to all questions were tabulated by organization size class: (1) firms with 1-19 employees, (2) firms with 20-249

employees, and (3) firms with 250 or more employees.

These 3 size classes do not actually correspond to "small," "medium," and

"large" size designations in all industry groups. In the interest of brevity,

however, many of the discussions use this terminology when presenting data

based on breakdown by size. The text table (p. 10) shows the percentages of

the total sample population made up by each size group. The fact that there was approximately equal representation in each group was an artifact of sample selection. B. INDUSTRY GROUPS. Responses to nearly every question were tabulated by industry group using the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classifications. The percentages of firms selected from each industry correspond approximately to the actual proportions of employees within each industry. Therefore, the percentages shown in the graphs below are approximately representative of the nonmanufacturing industries in general. (See appendix for complete discussion of sample selection.

)

INDUSTRY DIVISIONS. The 4-digit industry groups were also aggregated

for some analyses into 7 industry divisions. The identification and distribu- tion of responses by groups and divisions are shown on the following chart.
BACKGROUND 9

BREAKDOWNS OF TOTAL SAMPLE BY

INDUSTRY GROUPS AND SIC DIVISIONS

A. Agriculture

B. Forestry / Fisheries C. Mining

D. Construction

E. Transportation

F G H I Industry Group

F. Communications

G. Utilities H. Wholesale Trade

I. Retail Trade

J. Finance

< L M

K. Insurance

L. Real Estate M. Services

A B C D E F G

Industry Division

A. Agriculture / Forestry / Fisheries (Group A in Tables)

B. Mining

C. Construction

D. Transportation / Communication / Utilities (Group B in Tables)

E. Wholesale / Retail Trade (Group C in Tables)

F. Finance / Insurance / Real Estate (Group D in Tables)

G. Services

441-268 0-71—
to NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Number of employees

1--19 20--249 250 + Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

851 33.2 863 33.7 849 33.1 2,563 100

C. GROSS SALES: (Q. IV—25) It was believed that in some cases

gross dollar sales would be a better indicator of company size than number

of employees. Therefore, for some questions the data were tabulated by 4

categories of gross sales: (1) Under $1 million, (2) Over $1 million to $100 million, (3) Over $100 million to $1 billion, and (4) Over $1 billion. As the text table below shows, 9 percent of the total sample gave no answer when asked to indicate gross sales or gross dollar volume. These 9 percent were not included in the cross-tabulation.

Gross sales Number Percent total population

Under $1 million 1 ,042 41 Over $1 million-$100 million 996 39 Over $100 million-$l billion 211 8 Over $1 billion 70 3 Don't know/Refused answer 244 9

Total 2,563 100

Gross sales are related to the size of company based on employment as the

text table below shows:

Gross sales

1-19 20-249 250 + Total

Under $1 million 82% 37% 3% 41%

Over $1 million-$100 million 9 50 57 39 Over $100 million-$l billion 0.5 1 23 8 Over $1 billion 0 0.1 8 3 Don't know/Refused 8 11 9 9

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Number of employees
BACKGROUND

The above breakdown is mainly of interest in singling out the very largest

firms in terms of revenues. The two categories of "Over $100 Million to $1

Billion" and "Over $1 Billion" constitute 11 percent of the total number of

firms in the survey and include the largest companies in the sample both in terms of number of employees and gross sales. D. SUGGESTED CHANGEOVER TIME PERIOD: (Q. IV—8). Several questions in section IV of the questionnaire (Future Use of Measurement Systems) have been cross tabulated by the response to Q. IV—8: "Suggested time period for a nationally planned changeover to the metric

system," as it was thought that the response to this question might be related

(o the attitudes or predictions stated in other questions.

Four intervals of suggested time periods were used

Suggested time period Percent total sample

Never 2 Within 5 years 29 6-10 years 42 More than 10 years 14

Total 87

The remaining 13 percent (321 firms) gave no answer to that question.

These 321 firms are not included in the cross-tabulations.

E. EXPORTERS: ("YES" to Q. II A—8). Nearly 12 percent of the sample stated that they exported to foreign countries. The responses from

these 298 firms, because of their probably greater experience in dealing with

2 measurement systems, were analyzed separately for certain major questions. Almost two-thirds of the exporters had 250 or more employees.

Representation of Exporting Firms

Percent exporters Number of employees Number in total sample Percent of all within that exporters

size class

1-19 30 3.4 10.1 20-249 71 8.2 23.8 250+ 197 23.2 66.1

Total 298 11.6 100
12 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

F. FIRMS HAVING FOREIGN LICENSEES OR SUBSIDIARIES:

("YES" to Qs. IIA—13 or IIB—8). Using the same rationale as for exporters, firms having foreign licensees/subsidiaries (291 firms or 11% of the

total population) were also analyzed separately for certain major questions.

Many more large than medium or small firms said they had foreign

licensees/subsidiaries.

Percent total sample having Percent of all Number of employees Number licensees/subsidiaries firms having

within that licensees /subsidiaries

size class

1-19 17 1.9 5.8 20-249 42 4.9 14.4 250+ 232 27.3 79.7

Total 291 11.3 100

This subpopulation was closely related to the exporting group: 45 percent

(N=130) of the firms that had licensees or subsidiaries were also exporters.

G. USERS OF EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, OR COMPONENTS DESCRIBED IN METRIC UNITS OR DESIGNED TO METRIC STANDARDS: ("YES" to O. Ill— 1 or III—2). This special subgroup, all firms

currently using metric goods or equipment in company inputs, was analyzed

separately for certain major questions because of their presumably greater

experience in using such articles, and their possibly better information about

the impact of metrication. There was more nearly equal representation from

all 3 size classes in this group than in the Exporting or Licensee/Subsidiaries

groups; the largest firms again had greater representation, however.

Percent total sample Percent of all Number of employees Number within that "Metric" users

size class

1-19 112 13.2 25.2 20-249 136 15.8 30.6 250+ 197 23.2 44.3

Total 445 17.4 100

H. LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM: (Q. 1—3).

It was hypothesized that the level of knowledge of the company spokesman,

(interviewers were instructed to seek out the best qualified spokesman on this topic), might be related to the company's general attitude toward metrica-
BACKGROUND 13

tion. Therefore, for certain major questions, responses were cross-tabulated

with four "knowledge" groups based on answers given to question 1-3 which was asked before respondents had received any explanations from NBS about

the metric system.

Group I was made up of those who gave a full definition of the metric sys- tem: "An internationally used measurement system based on units of ten"; "A system using the meter as the unit of length, the kilogram as the unit of mass, the second as the unit of time, and the degree Celsius as the unit of

temperature"; or some reasonable facsimile of these answers (12% total sample).

Group II was made up of those who gave a partial definition of the metric

system: "A measurement system used in most European countries"; "A

measurement system which uses meters and grams"; and other such explanations which are correct, but somewhat incomplete (61% total sample).

Group III was made up of those who gave incorrect answers: e.g., "A sys- tem using pounds and meters," "the measurement system used everywhere in the world"; etc. (4.5% total sample).

Group IV were those respondents who said they did not know what the metric system was (20% total sample).

Definition of metric system

Full Number of employees Partial Incorrect Don't know

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1-19 74 24 450 29 45 39 251 49 20-249 87 28 526 34 36 31 189 37 250+ 146 47 577 37 34 30 73 14

Total. . . 307 100 1,553 100 115 100 513 100

There was a greater proportion of large companies than medium or small

in both the "Full" and "Partial" definition groups. In the "Incorrect" and

"Don't Know" definition groups there were greater proportions of small companies than medium or large.
SECTION II. General Discussion of

Survey Findings

The order of discussion in this section generally follows the sequence of questions in the questionnaires.

KNOWLEDGE OF METRIC CHARACTERISTICS

Good knowledge of how the metric system works was not very widespread. Only about 12 percent of the sample gave thoroughly knowledgeable

replies about the principles of the system, another 61 percent had some general information about how metric measurement is used and the remaining

27 percent either didn't know or didn't answer the question. This kind of

fragmentary information base may have distorted answers to later specific

questions about retraining programs, etc., although educational materials were sent to all respondents in between interviewing phases.

SOURCES OF METRIC INFORMATION

The sources of information about metric measurement were said to have

been primarily school, newspapers and trade journals. The voice media, TV

14
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS 15

and radio, were hardly mentioned. This finding has strong implications for the most effective methods that may be used in reeducation of the public at large. All 3 of the media named above permit or require study of explanations presented.

It is of further interest to note that respondents with little or no personal

knowledge of metric measurement anticipated the most problems and highest

costs in retraining of their company employees.

DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES BY ORGANIZATION SIZE

Differences of opinion between size classes of organizations were usually not significant although they have been pointed out in the detailed analysis

when large enough to be worthy of note. Variance in opinion by company size class seemed to be most significant in the areas of exports, presence of foreign licensees or subsidiaries and

usage of metric-dimensioned equipment. Several times as many of the largest

corporations were either engaged in foreign commerce, had licensees etc., as medium or small establishments had. Some of the small organizations had in- ternational interests but not on the scale of the larger corporations. Opinions

presented for the exporting subgroup therefore represent all sizes of companies.Large companies, having more ties with foreign commerce and often having licensees or subsidiaries abroad, more often used equipment either pur- chased from foreign suppliers and/or designed to metric standards.

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF METRICATION

A majority of firms said metrication would have no effect on annual dollar

costs. Those who said costs would change generally said that the total cost of changeover to metric measurement would be less than 5 percent of 1 year's dollar costs of operation, with the expense being thought of as spread fairly

evenly over the entire period of conversion. With a changeover program last- ing 10 years, the cost per year, it was said, would average about 0.5 percent

or less. The rewards for this effort were envisioned as easier measurement

calculations, uniformity, "greater accuracy" and improved foreign trade. Only

11 percent of the total sample were engaged in foreign trade at the time of

the survey. The primary cost associated with change to SI would be neither for new

equipment nor the temporary keeping of a dual inventory, but the expense of

retraining the labor force, it was said. Many of the estimates of such cost were hard to believe, however, such as "It would cost more than the original

training in how to carry out their jobs!" or "At least $1,000 per man, maybe

more."
16 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

IMPORTS

The traditional U.S. "isolationism" manifested itself among a few respondents who implied, "The U.S. is its own best customer, our measurement sys- tem probably acts as a sort of pseudo tariff, presenting to some extent an

otherwise uninhibited influx of foreign merchandise." Opinions from the majority contradicted this innuendo, however. Two-thirds of all the goods imported to the U.S. which were known to these respondents, were said to bear

metric dimensions either as a result of having been manufactured on metric

dimensioned machinery or because the goods themselves had been designed

to metric engineering standards. For example, automobiles, calculating machines, electronics equipment, etc., are produced abroad on metric measure- ments and may be sold anywhere—those destined for sale in the U.S. are

just certain lots that roll off the same assembly line that is used to produce

units sold in Africa, Europe, etc. A few foreign companies, notably in Japan,

do manufacture goods to U.S. dimensions for export to this country.

FOREIGN COMPETITION IN THE U.S.

Another interesting aspect of international trade manifested itself in the an- swers to the questionnaire—those U.S. industries in this survey which had

the largest quantities of exports also said they had the most competition in- side the U.S. from foreign imports. The rationale for this statement seems to have been that large processors or dealers handle goods that are the most

widely sold. Just as they sell their goods in all the markets they can find, for- eign producers of the same goods do likewise.

METRIC GOODS USAGE IN THE U.S.

A few U.S. establishments already produce goods designed to metric

standards. Some of these items are intended for export to foreign countries,

but slightly over half of those produced are sold to U.S. consumers who al- ready use the metric system in company operations. About 17 percent of all firms surveyed were making some use of equipment, supplies or components,

either described in metric units or designed to metric standards. The largest

companies (21% of their group) more often used such equipment, etc., than

smaller organizations. There were at least a few representatives in each of the

thirteen industry groups which used metric items of some kind, most of them

without conversion to U.S. measurements. Construction, Transportation, Utilities and the Wholesale Trades were the most frequent users of foreign pro- duced goods.

METRIC EQUIPMENT IN THE U.S.

In the U.S. wherever organizations covered by the survey had bought one machine designed to metric standards for use in company operations, they
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS 17

tended to have purchased additional units of the same kind of equipment

when replacements were necessary, until all equipments of one particular

type were on the same measurement standard. This procedure apparently

simplified maintenance problems and provided uniformity of operation. It also represented the effects of intrusion of metric-designed equipment into the domestic market.

DUAL DIMENSIONING

Which measurement system may have been used in fabricating items other

than components or parts is usually of little concern to the consumer. If the

size of individual units is important, as with clothing, for example, metric measures often can be readily translated to U.S. equivalents, and vice versa, while the basic dimensions remain unchanged. This kind of size translation is followed to some extent both for imports to the U.S. and for exports to those

foreign countries which require that all imported goods be consistent with the measurement standards used in that nation.

FUTURE CONVERSION TO METRIC

A majority (51%) of the population of interest saw no particular diffi- culty in converting or adjusting to the metric system, although it should be

mentioned that 74 percent of the nonmanufacturing sector of the economy

was concerned with service activities while only 40 percent engaged in product oriented activities. When the 51 percent of nonopposers is added to the 26 percent who said they didn't know how the change might affect company

operations, it appears that only 24 percent were really opposed to the intro- duction of a national change in the measurement system. This point is graphically illustrated in the histogram for table 115 on page 161. ADVANTAGES TO POSSIBLE METRICATION

In general, metric measurement was seen as being easier to learn, easier to use and "more precise" than the U.S.-English system, as well as being an ap- proach to world uniformity or standardization in measurement. All of the above advantages were concerned with the characteristics of the measurement

system itself. There was a small group of respondents, about 5 percent of the

total sample, mostly clustered in the Wholesale and Retail Trades, Transportation and Services, which said that metrication of the U.S. would also en- courage international trade. As might be expected, companies already using some metric equipment tended to cite more advantages to SI than did those not employing metric items.

DISADVANTAGES TO POSSIBLE METRICATION

Changeover would present some problems for individual companies it was

thought, such as difficulties with servicing, repair parts, a dual measurement
18 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

system during the conversion period, dual inventories for parts, employees

having to become fully conversant with quick methods for changing from one

system to the other and the reeducating of the public. These disadvantages

except the retraining of employees (14%) were mentioned by from 1 to 9

percent of the total population.

LENGTH OF POSSIBLE CONVERSION PERIOD

All respondents were asked to suggest first an optimum conversion period

for the nation as a whole and, second, a reasonable changeover time for their own industry. The general consensus was for a 6 to 10-year period for the

entire economy but all industry groups thought their own members could

handily convert in less time than the nation could. About 49 percent specified 2 years or less as an optimum length of changeover time for their own

industries. In eight industries—Finance, Insurance, Agriculture, Services,

Real Estate, Forestry/Fisheries, Retail Trade, and Transportation—the largest percentage "voting" for any one time period, backed an "immediate"

change to SI for their industries. The only industries in which the largest

number of spokesmen specified 6 to 10 years were Utilities and Wholesale

Trade.

A 10-YEAR PLANNED PROGRAM OF CHANGEOVER

The 10-year planned metrication program suggested in the following list of

characteristics was seen as a possible hardship by only about 2 percent of the sample population. Approximately the same number of respondents steadfastly maintained that the U.S. should "never" change its present system of

measurement.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A POSSIBLE PLANNED

METRICATION PROGRAM

Along with their package of educational materials, all respondents received a list of "Hypothetical Characteristics of a Planned National Program to In- crease Metric Usage in the U.S."

HYPOTHETICAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. All major countries except the U.S. are now metric.

2. There would be a nationally planned program in the United States to increase the use of the metric measurement system in this country.

3. The changeover to the metric system would be completed by the end

of a designated time period.

4. Within the designated time period, all changes to metric language for printed materials such as signs, catalogs, deeds, and labels would be

made only when such materials needed to be revised; and all
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS 19

changes to metric sizes or engineering standards would be made

only for new or redesigned parts or products.

5. Existing equipment would be used until the end of its normal life cycle; the only changes to metric units would be in dials, gages, and

indicating devices.

6. You could establish your own schedule for conversion to metric lan- guage or standards, as long as these changes were accomplished

within the designated time period.

7. All goods and services normally used by your organization would be

available in metric terms as needed and at no extra cost to you. (To

avoid the pyramiding of costs.)

8. The metric system would be taught in all U.S. schools during the transition period and the general public would be gaining familiarity

with the metric measurement system at the same time.

The interviewer, after reminding the respondent of these assumptions, always

added:

"We've adopted those characteristics to find out how a nationally

planned program might affect you. Let me emphasize that no program of

this type actually exists. It's purely hypothetical."

ATTITUDES TOWARD INCREASED METRIC USAGE

WITHIN OWN COMPANIES

After the eight national program characteristics had been recalled to re- spondents, thus presumably insuring that subsequent answers would be given

in the light of those limitations, company spokesmen aligned themselves as follows

Percent of total

Strongly or mildly in favor of increased company usage of SI 30 Neutral 43

Strongly or mildly against increased company

usage of SI 26

The class of smallest employers constituted the majority of strongly "for"

or "against" change within their own companies. (See histograms for table 115 on page 161.)

INCREASED METRIC USAGE AND THE BEST

NATIONAL INTEREST

Sixty-one percent of all respondents said that increased metric usage was

in the best interest of the U.S.; majorities in all industries supported this po-
20 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

sition. Agriculture was least enthusiastic in its endorsement, Finance most enthusiastic. The opinions expressed by all industries on the national interest question are listed here and shown graphically in the histogram for table 116 on page 164.

Industry

Finance

Insurance Real Estate

Services Mining

Forest/Fisheries Wholesale Trade

Percent saying

increased use of

SI is "In best

interests of U.S."

716966

6464

63

63

Industry

Communication

Utilities Transportation.

Retail Trade

Construction. . Agriculture

Percent saying

increased use of

SI is "In best

interests of U.S."

60

5959

58

5752

In the subgroups of exporters and present users of metric equipment/tools,

75 percent said increased usage was in the "best interests

1

' of the U.S.

PREFERABLE COURSE OF ACTION

IN POSSIBLE CONVERSION

Respondents were offered 3 alternatives for a possible national changeover.

They selected among them as follows:

Percent favoring

A mandatory program based on legislation A coordinated national program based on voluntary participation

No national planned program; participation totally voluntary .

Don't know/No answer

62

24

Large corporations (70% ) were more often favorable toward a mandatory

program than were small (57%) or medium (62%) size companies.

CRITIQUE OF STUDY RESULTS

SPOKESMEN. A consistent effort was made to obtain the most knowledgeable spokesman the organization afforded. In 82 percent of the cases this person was a relatively high level manager; in many companies it was the
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS 21

president himself. The remaining 18 percent of respondents were either technical personnel or technicians turned manager. The problem inherent in questioning largely managerial personnel became apparent in the answers

given to the more technical questions—respondents often didn't know such

things as whether equipments used in company operations were designed to metric or U.S. engineering standards, or whether imported goods had been

made to metric measure or not. They did know about managerial data such as percentages of exports and imports, annual sales volume, etc. This ignorance

of technical detail led to unusually large percentages of "don't know" an- swers for some questions.

KNOWLEDGE OF METRIC SYSTEM. About 25 percent of all company

spokesmen were poorly acquainted with the characteristics of metric meas- urement when first questioned about organization attitudes twoard metrication. Educational materials remedied about 95 percent of this information

gap but replies to some questions indicated that not all of these people had

done their "homework" thoroughly. The problem then became, "Should all replies be counted anyhow?" The decision was made to count all responses

but to point out nonsequiturs as these occurred.

NO EXACT COST FIGURES. Due to the extremely diverse nature of the

industries in the nonmanufacturing universe, interview questions had to be

phrased in general terms in order to be applicable to all respondents. It was

important that only one set of questionnaires be used in order that information accumulated be comparable between industries. Because of the immense

difficulty experienced in other efforts of the U.S. Metric Study to encourage

firms, associations and other organizations to make special studies of probable costs of changeover to metric measurement, no exact cost figures were re- quested in the nonmanufacturing survey. Instead, only estimates of possible

percentages of increase or decrease in annual operating costs were sought.

Figures presented in this report, therefore, often have "ballpark" characteristics—they were the result of quick estimations, undoubtedly influenced by

general company attitudes toward the whole metrication issue. MUCH NEUTRALITY TOWARDS METRICATION. With an opinion

bias influencing replies, the surveyer would normally expect to obtain exaggerated levels of antagonism to, or enthusiasm for, the entire metric issue. Such was not the case. The majority of spokesmen were either favorable or

neutral in their expressions about possible national adoption of the metric

system, but may have expressed their fears about unknown problems by ex- aggerating the cost estimates connected with changeover. It is believed that the strength of opinion about national adoption of metric measurement can

be accepted at face value.
SECTION III. Questionnaires

22
QUESTIONNAIRES 23

RESPONDENT NUMBER

OMB NO. 41-S70034

INITIAL CONTACT INTERVIEW

CLASSIFICATION DATA

SIC 4-Digit Code: ______________ Name of SIC Industrial Group:

(RECORD NAME AND NUMBER OF 4-DIGIT GROUP IN THE

APPROPRIATE SPACE AT THE END OF SECTION I.)

Name of Respondent:

Title of Respondent:

Name of Organization: __________________________________

City, State, ZIP CODE:

Telephone (Area Code & Number) : _________________

Date Initial Contact Interview Completed: ________ Date Information Mailed:

Date Second Interview Completed:

(DO NOT READ ANSWERS TO RESPONDENT, UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. THE RESPONSE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE

SUPPLIED ARE ONLY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE IN RECORDING.

QUESTIONS WHICH ARE PRECEDED BY * SHOULD BE ASKED OF

ALL RESPONDENTS.)

?RODUCTION

This is of the firm of Bickert, Browne, and

Idington. We're conducting a survey for the National Bureau of

indards as part of the U.S. Metric Study. I believe you received

.etter recently from the Department of Commerce explaining the

idy. The purpose of the survey is to try to determine how much

i Metric System is being used by industry. We also need to know

>ther companies foresee any increased use of the Metric System in

> future.

The information we collect from this official call is very

)ortant, since the survey results will be reported to the Secretary

Commerce and the Congress. Therefore, we need to talk to the

;hest ranking company spokesman who is available.

(Table 2)

(Table 3)
24 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The interview will be conducted entirely by telephone and has

two phases. The first phase, which I would like to complete today

if possible, generally lasts 3 to 5 minutes. The second interview

should take about 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the scope and

nature of your company's activities. This second phase will take

place during a separate phone call a week to 10 days from now,

I'd like to ask you the few questions of Phase 1 now, if I may.

SECTION I. ATTITUDES AND LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE

*1, Maybe you've heard talk going around lately that the United

States might adopt the metric system of measurement. Have (Table 4)

you heard anything about this?

1, Yes 2, _ _ No 3» Don't know

IF YES TO Q, 1 ;

2. What have you heard? (Table 5)

READ "SOMETHING"

_ HEARD "SOMETHING"

READ ABOUT IT IN BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS

_ READ ABOUT IT IN NEWSPAPER

HEARD OR READ SOMETHING SPECIFIC (SPECIFY:)

OTHER (SPECIFY:)

*3« If one of your friends asked you what the metric system is, (Table 6)

what would you tell him?

(IF RESPONDENT CAN GIVE NO ANSWER, OR ASKS FOR A DEFIN ITION , SAY :

)

We will be sending you more information about the Metric

System before my next call. Briefly, though, the Metric System

is a measurement system based generally on the meter as the unit

of length, the kilogram as the unit of mass, the second as the

unit of time, the degree Celsius as the unit of temperature,

and units derived from these. It is the measurement system

used in many parts of the world.
QUESTIONNAIRES

*4. Have you ever used the metric system yourself?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. k :

5. In what way did you use it?

1. SCHOOL

2. WORK

3. ARMED SERVICES

k. FOREIGN TRAVEL

5. HOBBY

6. OTHER: (SPECIFY)

25

(Table 7)

(Table

•6. Does the metric system have any advantages or disadvantages

that you know of?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

(Table 9)

IF YES TO Q. 6 :

6a. What are they?

ADVANTAGES: (Table 10)

DISADVANTAGES: (Table 11)

441-628 0-71—
26 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED "DON'T KNOW" WHEN ASKED TO DEFINE THE

METRIC SYSTEM IN Q. 3, DO NOT ASK Q. 7.)

7. How do you think it would affect your company if the

United States decided to adopt the metric system?

(ONLY A BRIEF, GENERAL ANSWER IS WANTED. IF RESPONDENT

GIVES A LONG, DETAILED ANSWER, TACTFULLY INTERRUPT.)

1. NOT AT ALL

2. JUST WOULD TAKE TIME TO GET USED TO IT

3. SOME SPECIFIC ADVERSE EFFECTS

*f. SOME SPECIFIC BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

5. OTHER (SPECIFY: ) .

9. DON'T KNOW

That's all I really need to know today. In my next call,

(Mr.) (Mrs.) , we will be particularly interested in some detailed information on metric usage in your company.

Am I correct in recording your primary standard industrial

classification as:

NAME OF SIC CATEGORY:

if-DIGIT SIC NUMBER:

(IF CLASSIFICATION IS INCORRECT, DETERMINE RESPONDENT'S

CORRECT PRIMARY SIC CLASSIFICATION AND RECORD IT ON THE

FRONT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.)

Before I contact you again in a week or so, I will mail you

some supplementary information about the metric system. The

information is fairly brief, and it should help you to answer the

second phase of questions. I would appreciate your reading through

it before I call back.

'When would be a convenient day and time for me to call you to

conduct the second interview? If you'd prefer, it might be easier

to conduct the next interview after business hours. I could call

you at home some evening next week or even on Saturday, if that

would be more convenient.
QUESTIONNAIRES 'a

(IF HOME APPOINTMENT IS MADE:

HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: )

DATE OF SECOND APPOINTMENT

DAY:

DATE:

TIME:

Thank you again, (Mr.) (Mrs.)

to you again on <____^____^_ at

. I'll plan on talking

o'clock.
28 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECOND INTERVIEW

(II B)

(USE WITH THE FOLLOWING SIC CATEGORIES):

^f-DIGIT NUMBER SIC CATEGORY

kO,. thru k7.. TRANSPORTATION

kS., COMMUNICATIONS

60.. thru 62.. & 67.. FINANCE

7... thru 8... SERVICES

63. . INSURANCE

64.. thru 66.. REAL ESTATE

INTRODUCTION

(Mr.) (Mrs.) ? This is (INTERVIEWER) of

Bickert, Browne & Coddington and the U.S. Metric Study. I'm calling

to complete the second phase of your interview. Have you had a

chance to review the materials we sent you?

IF NO : Would it be possible to reschedule the second interview

to give you more time to review that information?

When do you think that would be?

DATE:

TIME:

IF YES : Will you be able to complete the interview at this time?

(IF YES, CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW)

(IF NO, RECORD NEW APPOINTMENT)

DATE:

TIME:

For this phase of questions, would you please answer the

questions from your company's point of view, keeping in mind the

principal industry group you are representing: (NAME OF 4-DIGIT

SIC FROM PAGE 1 OF CONTACT INTERVIEW: . I'd like you to answer for your U.S. operations, unless foreign

operations are specifically asked for in the question.
QUESTIONNAIRES 29

SECTION II. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ; OUTPUT

"1. Could you please give me a brief run-down of your company's (Table 14)

major activities?

'2. Do you quote any prices based on measurements such as length, (Table 15)

area, or volume?

1. Yes 2. No 3» Don't know

'3« How about quoting prices based on other measurements such as (Table 16)

weight, temperature, or thermal content?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO EITHER 0. 2 OR 3, ASK Q. 4-6

IF NO TO BOTH Q. 2 & 3, SKIP TO Q. 7»
30 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

k, I'm going to read various measurement dimensions. Would you (Tables 17-20)

please tell me which measurement system - that is, U.S. or metric - you use to quote prices for each of these dimensions?

(READ DIMENSIONS TO RESPONDENT AND RECORD IN THE APPROPRIATE

BOX BELOW. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "BOTH", ASK:

For what percent would you estimate the metric system is

used in quoting prices?

DIMENSION U.S. METRIC BOTH

PERCENT

METRIC

LENGTH OR AREA

VOLUME

WEIGHT

" 1

TEMPERATURE

5. Are there any engineering or size standards which you use in (Table 21)

selling your services?

1. _____ Yes 2. _____ No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 5. ASK Q. 3a & 3b :

5a. Could you name those standards? _______________________

5b. What measurement system (are those) (is that) (Table 22)

standard(s) based on?

1. U.S. 2. Metric 3. Other k. D.K.

6. Could you discuss for a moment the reasons why your company uses (Table 23)

the measurement units or standards you just mentioned?

(CHECK ONE OR MORE REASONS BELOW.

)

TRADITION (ORIGIN UNKNOWN) SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT

LAW REQUIRES IT

TO MEET DOMESTIC COMPETITION

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

CUSTOMERS DEMAND IT

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

DON'T KNOW
QUESTIONNAIRES 31

• Do you ever package any goods or products? (Table 2k)

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 7 :

7a. What measurement units are used to describe the (Tables 25-27)

container or package? First of all, for length

or area? And volume? And weight?

U.S.. METRIC DON'T KNOW

LENGTH OR AREA

VOLUME

WEIGHT

• Does your organization have any licensee or subsidiary (Table 28)

operations in foreign countries?

1. Yes 2. No 3« Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 8, ASK Q. 9 - 11 .

IF NO TO Q. 8, SKIP TO Q. 12
32 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

9. What measurement system is used in your foreign operations? (Table 29)

1. _____ U.S. 2. Metric 3. Both *f. D.K.

10. Why is that system used? (Table 30)

11. Did measurement considerations influence your decision (Table 31)

to operate a foreign licensee or subsidiary?

1. _ Yes 2. No 3. . Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 11 ;

11a. How did measurement considerations influence (Table 32)

your decision?

*12. In general, do you think the measurement units or standards (Table 33)

used for foreign goods have affected the sales of these goods

in the U.S.?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

*12a. Why is that? (Table 3*0
QUESTIONNAIRES

OMB No. 41-S70034

Expiration Date 12/31/70

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECOND INTERVIEW

(II A)

(USE WITH THE FOLLOWING SIC CATEGORIES):

4-DIGIT NUMBER SIC CATEGORY

0... AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES

10.. thru l*f.. MINING

15.. thru 179. CONSTRUCTION

k9mm UTILITIES

50.. WHOLESALE

52.. thru 59.. RETAIL TRADE

INTRODUCTION

(Mr.) (Mrs.) ? This is (INTERVIEWER) of

Bickert, Browne & Coddington and the U.S. Metric Study. I'm calling

to complete the second phase of your interview. Have you had a

chance to review the materials we sent you?

IF NO : Would it be possible to reschedule the second interview

to give you more time to review that information?

When do you think that would be?

DATE:

TIME:

IF YES: Will you be able to complete the interview at this time?

(IF YES, CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW)

(IF NO, RECORD NEW APPOINTMENT)

DATE:

TIME:

For this phase of questions, would you please answer the

questions from your company's point of view, keeping in mind the

principal industry group you are representing: (NAME OF ^f-DIGIT

SIC FROM PAGE 1 OF CONTACT INTERVIEW: . I'd like you to answer for your U.S. operations, unless foreign

operations are specifically asked for in the question.
34 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

SECTION II. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM: OUTPUT

*1« Could you please give me a brief run-down of your company's (Table 1*0

major activities?

(PROBE FOR PRINCIPAL CLASS OF PRODUCTS)

*2. Do you quote any prices based on measurements such as length, (Table 15)

area, or volume?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

*3. How about quoting prices based on other measurements such as (Table 16)

weight, temperature, or thermal content?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

**t. I'm going to read some measurement dimensions. Could you tell

me which measurement system - that is, U.S. or metric - you use

to describe each dimension when your product (s) (is) (are)

sold?

(READ DIMENSION TO RESPONDENT AND RECORD IN THE APPROPRIATE

BOX BELOW. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "BOTH", ASK:

For what percent would you estimate the metric system is

used to describe your product(s)?

PERCENT

DIMENSION METRIC

LENGTH OR AREA

(Tables 17-20

VOLUME

WEIGHT

TEMPERATURE
QUESTIONNAIRES 35

*5« Are there any engineering or size standards which you use in (Table 21)

selling your product (s)?

1. Yes 2. No 3. _ Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 5. ASK Q. 5a & 5b ;

5a. Could you name those standards?

5b. What measurement system (are those) (is that) (Table 22)

standard(s) based on?

1. U.S. 2. Metric 5. Other k. D.K.

*6. Could you discuss for a moment the reasons why your company uses (Table 23)

the measurement units or standards you just mentioned?

(CHECK ONE OR MORE REASONS BELOW.)

TRADITION (ORIGIN UNKNOWN)

CUSTOMERS DEMAND IT

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

TO IMPROVE QUALITY OR PERFORMANCE

OTHER (EXPLAIN) ____________

OTHER (EXPLAIN)

DON'T KNOW

SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT

LAW REQUIRES IT

TO MEET DOMESTIC COMPETION

*7. Do you ever package any goods or products?

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. _ Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 7 :

7a. What measurement units are used to describe the

container or package? First of all, for length

or area? And volume? And weight?

LENGTH OR AREA

U.S. METRIC DON'T KNOW

(Table 24)

(Tables 25-27)

VOLUME

WEIGHT
36 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

'8. Does your organization ever export any U.S. products to

foreign countries?

1. Yes No 3. Don't know

(Table 35)

IF YES TO Q. 8, ASK Q. 9 - 12.

IF NO TO Q. 8. SKIP TO Q. 13.

9. When you export products, do you describe those products (Table 36)

with the same measurement units you use for U.S. sales?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes 4. D.K.

IF "NO" OR "SOMETIMES" TO Q. 9 ;

9a. Does this change present any problems? (Table 37)

10. How about engineering standards, are they the same as for

U.S. sales?

1. Yes 2. _ No 3« Sometimes k,

IF "NO" OR "SOMETIMES" TO Q. 10 :

10a. Is there ever a problem for you?

D.K.

(Table 38)

(Table 39)
QUESTIONNAIRES 37

11. Do you feel that the volume of your export sales ever (Table 40)

depends on the measurement units you use?

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 11:

11a. To what extent? (Table 4l)

12. How about engineering standards, do you feel that the (Table 42)

volume of your export sales ever depends on the engineering

standards you use?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 12 ;

12a. To what extent? (Table 43)
38 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

*13. Does your organization have any licensee or subsidiary (Table 28)

operations in foreign countries?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 13. ASK Q. lk - 16 .

IF NO TO Q. 13. SKIP TO Q. 17.

Ik. What measurement system is used in your foreign operations? (Table 29)

1. U.S. 2. Metric 3. Both k. D.K.

15. Why is that system used? (Table 30)

16. Did measurement systems influence your decision to operate (Table 31) a foreign licensee or subsidiary?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 16 ;

16a. How did measurement considerations influence (Table 32)

your decision?
QUESTIONNAIRES 39

* 17. To your knowledge, are the products that you sell in the U.S. (Table 44)

also imported to this country by foreign firms?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 17 :

17a. Are the measurement units or standards for these (Table 45) foreign products different from the ones used in

your U.S. sales?

1. Yes 2. No 3» Sometimes k, DK

*l8. In general, do you think the measurement units or standards (Table 33) used for foreign goods have affected the sales of these goods

in the U.S?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

•19. Why is that? (Table 34)
40 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECTION III. EXISTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ; INPUT

*1. Does your organization make any significant use of equipment, (Tables

supplies, components or tools which are described in metric

units?

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. Don't know

IF YES, ASK Q. la - Id ;

la. Can you list for me those articles which are described

in metric units?

(RECORD EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF METRIC ARTICLE IN COLUMN A BELOW.)

A. METRIC ARTICLES B. % METRIC C. DUAL

1.

2.

3.

<*.

5.

6.

(FOR EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF "METRIC ARTICLE"

RECORDED IN Q. la, ASK Q. lb - Id.)

lb. About what perecnt of your total (METRIC ARTICLES)

are described in metric units?

(RECORD IN COLUMN B ABOVE.)

lc. Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment)

(tools) you mentioned described in metric units

only, or is there dual dimensioning?

1. Metric only 2. Dual 3. Don't know

Id. Which of them have dual dimensioning?

(RECORD IN COLUMN C OF CHART ABOVE)
QUESTIONNAIRES 41

*2. Now I'd like to ask about engineering standards. Does your (Tables 59-71)

organization make any significant use of equipment, supplies,

components or tools which are designed to metric engineering

standards ?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 2, ASK Q. 2a - 2d ;

2a. Which articles are designed to metric engineering

standards?

(RECORD EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF ARTICLE IN COLUMN A

BELOW.)

A. METRIC ARTICLES B. % METRIC C. DUAL

1.

2.

--— ————————

3.

k.

5.

6. i

(FOR EACH GENERAL CATEGORY OF "METRIC ARTICLE"

RECORDED IN Q. 2a, ASK Q. 2b - 2d.)

2b. About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTICLE) are designed to metric standards?

(RECORD IN COLUMN B ABOVE.)

2c. Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment) (tools)

which you mentioned designed to strictly metric

standards, or is there dual dimensioning?

1. Metric only 2. _ _ Dual 3. Don't know

2d. Which of them has dual dimensioning?

(RECORD IN COLUMN C OF CHART ABOVE.

)

IF "YES" TO EITHER Q. 1 OR 2, ASK Q. 3 - 5.

IF "NO" TO BOTH Q. AND 2, SKIP TO Q. 6.

441-628 0-71—4
42 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

3. Were the metric articles you mentioned manufactured in the (Table 72)

U.S. or in a foreign country?

1. U.S. 2. Foreign 3. Both k. D.K.

IF "BOTH" TO Q. 3 :

3a. Could you please estimate what percent were (Table 73)

manufactured in a foreign country?

PERCENT FOREIGN MADE:

k. Has your company found any particular advantages in using (Table 7*0

metric goods or equipment?

ADVANTAGES:

5. How about any disadvantages or problems associated with

such metric goods or equipment?

DISADVANTAGES:

(Table 75)
QUESTIONNAIRES 43

*6. Which of the following phrases best describes how important (Table 76)

measurements and measurement calculations are to your overall

company operations? (READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. VERY IMPORTANT

2. MODERATELY IMPORTANT

3. _ RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT

k. NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

*7« If you think of the total man-hours in your organization that (Table 77) are devoted to making measurements or measurement calculations,

about what percent of this total would you estimate is spent

using the metric measurement system?

PERCENT METRIC
44 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

RESPONDENT NUMBER

SECTION IV. FUTURE MEASUREMENT

In the next group of questions I'd like your opinions about your

possible future use of the metric system in this country. Some of

the questions will ask for predictions, and I realize that some of your answers can only be rough estimates. But please try to estimate as accurately as you can. Again, I'd like you to answer for your

company in the United States, unless foreign operations are specifically mentioned.

In the first set of questions, consider only the trends in your

(company's) (organization's) operations as they now exist. We want

to know what you think will happen to the use of measurement systems

in this country, if the existing trends are allowed to follow their

natural course. In other words, what will happen if there is no

national program to adopt the metric system, and each company is

allowed to use whichever measurement system is best for its purposes.

*1. Do you think that your organization will ever use or increase (Table

its use of metric measurements on its own?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Not unless whole U.S. does k. DK

*la. Why is that? (CHECK ONE OR MORE RESPONSES BELOW.) (Table

(IF "YES") (IF "NO" OR CONDITIONAL)

NO NEED

TOO EXPENSIVE

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

NO CUSTOMER DEMAND

NO FOREIGN COMMERCE

SUPPLIERS DETERMINE IT

LAW REQUIRES U.S.

SYSTEM

INTEGRATED; CANNOT

CHANGE ALONE

OTHER:

DON'T KNOW

TO FACILITATE INTERNATIONAL

COMMERCE

TO IMPROVE QUALITY OR

PERFORMANCE

INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION

OTHER:

OTHER:

DON'T KNOW
QUESTIONNAIRES 45

IF YES TO Q. 1, ASK Q. 2-4:

IF NO TO q. 1, SKIP TO Q. 5 .

2. When do you think you might begin to make changes in your (Table 80)

present measurement system on your own?

NUMBER OF YEARS: DON'T KNOW

3. What do you suppose will be some of the advantages of (Table 81)

increasing metric usage?

k. How about disadvantages? ___„_____ (Table 82)

*5« Let's suppose that the firms from which you buy supplies, (Table 83)

equipment, tools, or components increased their use of metric measures or standards on their own. What effect would that

have on your (company) (organization)?
46 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

*6. Do you think your company would face any inventory problems if (Table 84) some industries went metric on their own while others continued

to use the U.S. system?

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 6 ;

6a. What would be the nature and extent of those inventory (Table 85)

problems?

*7. Do you think that the government should take any action to (Table 86)

bring about changes in the use of metric units or standards

in this country?

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3» Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 7 :

7a. What sort of action should be taken to bring about (Table 87)

these changes?

_____ A COORDINATED, VOLUNTARY NATIONAL PROGRAM

A COORDINATED NATIONAL PROGRAM WITH CERTAIN

CHANGES MANDATORY

_ A NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

OTHER (SPECIFY):

OTHER (SPECIFY):

DON'T KNOW
QUESTIONNAIRES

While you are answering the next questions I'd like you to think

in terms of a nationally planned program to increase the use of the

metric system in this country. We've set up a list of hypothetical

characteristics of such a national program, so that each respondent

can answer in terms of the same plan.

Since our last conversation, you've received some materials from us which include a list of those hypothetical program characteristics.

I'd like to review those characteristics with you now. Do you have

that list handy.

(READ ALL EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS TO THE RESPONDENT,

EVEN IF HE STATES THAT HE HAS READ THE LIST.)

CHARACTERISTICS

1. All major countries except the U.S. are now metric.

2. There would be a nationally planned program in the

United States to increase the use of the metric

measurement system in this country.

3. The changeover to the metric system would be completed

by the end of a designated time period.

4. Within the designated time period, all changes to

metric language for printed materials such as signs,

catalogues, deeds, and labels would be made only when

such materials needed to be revised; and all changes

to metric sizes or engineering standards would be

made only for new or redesigned parts or products.

5. Existing equipment would be used until the end of

its normal life cycle; the only changes to metric

units would be in dials, gauges, and indicating

devices.

6. You could establish your own schedule for conversion

to metric language or standards, as long as these

changes were accomplished within the designated time

period.

7. All goods and services normally used by your

organization would be available in metric terms as needed and at no extra cost to you.

8. The metric system would be taught in all U.S. schools

during the transition period and the general public

would be gaining familiarity with the metric

measurement system at the same time.
48 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

We've adopted those characteristics to find out how a nationally

planned program might affect you. Let me emphasize that no program

of this type actually exists. It's purely hypothetical.

Before we continue, do you have any questions about the

characteristics?

*8. Suppose that you were going to help develop a national plan (Table 88)

for adopting the metric system in this country. What kind of

time period do you think would be reasonable for making the

changeover?

_ NEVER

_ IMMEDIATELY

_ NUMBER OF YEARS

_ DON'T KNOW

(KEEP THIS NUMBER OF YEARS IN MIND IN OBTAINING

ANSWERS TO Q. 10 - 12a.)

*9. How about a plan for a changeover for your own industry; what (Table 89)

time period do you think would be reasonable?

_ NEVER

_ IMMEDIATELY _ NUMBER OF YEARS

DON'T KNOW

*10. Suppose a national plan were developed so that the whole United (Table 90)

States would be metric by the end of a (NO. OF YEARS IN Q. 8)

year time period. What would be the biggest advantage to your

organization of this planned (NO. OF YEARS) - year changeover?
QUESTIONNAIRES 49

*11. What would be the biggest disadvantages? ____________________ (Table 91)

>12. How about your competition? Would this planned (NO. OF YEARS) - ( Table 92)

year metric changeover have any effect on your competitive

position among your chief U.S. competitors?

1. _ Yes 2. _ _ No 3« Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 12 ;

12a. What effect would it have? (Table 93)

(IF TIME PERIOD MENTIONED IN Q. 8 WAS EXACTLY

TEN YEARS , SKIP TO Q. 17.)

13. What if the national plan for changeover were a 10-year (Table 118)

period? If you use the same characteristics on your list,

would it change any of the answers you gave to the

(NO. OF YEARS GIVEN TO Q. 8) - year period?

1. Yes 2. No (PROBE)

IF YES TO Q. 13, ASK Q. l*f - 16 .

IF NO TO Q. 13, SKIP TO Q. 17«
50 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

lk. '//hat would be the biggest advantage to your organization (Table 9

20

of this 10-year planned changeover?

15. And what would be the biggest disadvantages? (Table 95)

16. Would this 10-year planned metric changeover have any effect (Table 96) on your competitive position with your chief U.S.

competitors?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 16 ;

16a. What effect would it have? _________ (Table 97)
QUESTIONNAIRES 51

*17« Keeping in mind the eight program characteristics, do you (Table 98)

think that a national 10-year planned changeover would

influence your annual dollar sales?

1. Yes 2. No 3» Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 17, ASK Q. 17a & 17b ;

IF NO TO Q. 18 . SKIP TO Q. l8.

17a. What do you think the percent change in your annual U.S. (Table 99)

dollar sales might be?

(BE SURE THAT THE RESPONDENT INDICATES THE DIRECTION

OF CHANGE; i.e., POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.)

1. _ _ + % 2. _ _ - % 3. Don't know

17b. How about the percent change in your annual dollar (Table 100)

export sales?

1. + % 2. _ _ - % 3. Don't know

*l8. Let's talk about costs now. Do you think a nationally planned (Table 101)

10-year changeover would have any effect on your annual dollar

costs?

1. Yes 2. No 3, Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 18, ASK Q. l8a - l8c .

IF NO TO Q. 18. SKIP TO Q. 19 .
52 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

l8a. Could you estimate the percent change in terms of your (Table 102)

annual costs?

1. _ _ + % 2. __ - % 3. Don't know

18b. About how long would you expect this change in costs (Table 103)

to affect your operation?

_ YEARS MONTHS _ DON'T KNOW

l8c. Which of the following would you estimate to be the (Table 104)

most important factor in your (increase) (decrease)

in costs?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

LABOR

EQUIPMENT

COMPONENTS

INVENTORY

OTHER (ASK FOR EXPLANATION)

_ DON'T KNOW

*19« Would such a changeover affect your selling price? (Table 105)

1. Yes 2. _ _ No 3. _ _ Don't know

(IF RESPONDENT ASKS OR EXPRESSES CONFUSION, EXPLAIN:

What we need to know here are changes in the actual costs

to your customers, not simple changes in cost because an article is sold in larger or smaller units.)

IF YES TO Q. 19 :

19a. About what percent increase or decrease in unit price (Table 106)

might you expect?

1. + % 2. - % 3, Don't know
QUESTIONNAIRES 53

*20, Would amy of your employees have to be retrained if the United (Table 107)

States were to go metric?

1. Yes 2. No 3» Don't know

IF YES TO Q. 20, ASK Q. 21 - 23a .

IF NO TO Q. 20. SKIP TO Q. 2k ,

21, About what percent would have to be retrained? (Table 108)

% Don't know

22. What do you think it might cost your company on the average (Table 109)

to retrain an employee?

8 Don't know

23. How does this compare with the costs for originally (Tables 110 and 11

training an employee?

(TRY TO OBTAIN APPROXIMATE COSTS FOR

ORIGINAL TRAINING.)

IF THE ANSWERS TO Q. 22 & 23 ARE OF EQUAL SIZE :

23a. Then you think that it would require (Table 112)

just as long to retrain your personnel

in the new system of measurement as it

took to teach them their job skills in

the beginning?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know
54 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

We need to know the answers to the next two questions, so that

we may get the most up-to-date information about the size of your

organization. This information will be kept completely confidential.

*Zk, How many persons are employed in your organization on the (Table 113)

average?

01 Less than 10 06 250 to 499

02 ____ 10 to 19 07 500 to 999

03 20 to hS 08 1,000 to 2,499

Ok 50 to 99 09 _ 2,500 to 10,000

05 100 to 249 10 Over 10,000

*25. What were your approximate gross sales or gross dollar volume (Table 114)

for the 1969 business year?

s

(IF RESPONDENT HESITATES , READ THE EXAMPLES OF DOLLAR RANGES

LISTED BELOW WHICH YOU FEEL ARE NEAR TO HIS ACTUAL DOLLAR

RANGE.)

01 ____ Up to $50 thousand 08 Over 325M to S50M

02 Over 350T to SlOOT 09 Over $50M to S100M

03 Over 3100T to S500T 10 Over S100M to S250M

Ok Over $500T to $1 M 11 Over $250M to $500M

05 Over SIM to S5M 12 Over 3500M to SIB

06 Over 35M to 310M 15 Over 31 billion

07 Over 310M to $25M
QUESTIONNAIRES 55

Finally, I'd like to ask just three more broad questions about

your company's overall feeling regarding the use of the metric system

in this country. They may appear to be repetitive, but we need your

candid opinion.

*26. Which of the following choices most closely indicates the (Table 115)

current attitude of your company toward increased metric

usage in your operations?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. STRONGLY FOR

2. MILDLY FOR

3. NEUTRAL

k. _ MILDLY AGAINST

5. STRONGLY AGAINST

*27» Do you believe that increased metric usage is in the best (Table 116)

interests of the United States?

1. Yes 2. No 3» Don't know

*28. If it is found that metric usage is in the best interests of (Table 117)

the United States, which of the following courses of action,

in your opinion, is preferable?

(READ CHOICES TO RESPONDENT.)

1. A MANDATORY PROGRAM BASED ON LEGISLATION

2. A COORDINATED NATIONAL PROGRAM BASED ON

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

3„ NO NATIONAL PLANNED PROGRAM; PARTICIPATION

WOULD BE TOTALLY VOLUNTARY

k, DON'T KNOW

Thank you very much. We appreciate the time you have given

in helping us with this study.
SECTION IV. Detailed Discussion of

Tables for All Questions

The section immediately following, contains a detailed analysis of the ta- bles for each question in the questionnaire. Some notes about the reading of

this material may be helpful.

Percentages quoted have been rounded to the nearest whole number except

a few of less than 2 percent. Decimal places with percentage figures tend to lead the reader to regard the findings as being more exact than they probably

are. All percentages should be read with a Standard Error in mind of ±

about 2 to 3 percent. The rounding of data statistics hopefully will keep the reader reminded of a possible margin of error. Text tables present only the highlights or most impressive information

from the full tables contained in appendix C. The purpose of the discussion

is to present the data as the analyst interprets their meaning and to lead the reader to consult the original tabular results so he may compare his own in- terpretation with that made by the investigators. Data are presented briefly in the text tables to emphasize particular points or to show up special contrasts. Complete information is given only when the question was of particular sig- nificance. Several special interest groups are occasionally singled out for detailed

analysis. For definition of: present metric users, exporters, companies with

foreign licensees and subsidiaries and others, see last pages of section II. Data for all questions are presented in at least two tables in the appendix.

The A tables present the data tabulated by company size class and, in cases where the number of respondents answering a question was dependent on how they had replied to a previous query, the sample may have been the

56
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 57

total population of 2563 or may have been some fragment of that number.

Where subgroups with special interests are singled out for analysis, the A

table will use as a base for calculation of percentages, only the number of re- spondents with those particular interests, e.g., only exporters, only those ex- pecting to have to retrain employees in case of national metrication, etc. B tables are nearly always based on the total population and present the data by industry group. Percentages shown indicate the proportions of representatives within each industry who stated certain views.

Tables C and D, where they have been formulated, show the same data by

the time originally suggested by respondents as "reasonable" for a national

changeover to SI and by size of company according to volume of annual

gross dollar sales.

In answering questions 13 through 16a in section IV of the questionnaire,

respondents seemed unable to discriminate between the import of these items

and the information requested in items IV, 9-11. Tables and data for questions 13—16a are therefore not presented.

Reference tables are listed at the top of the first page for each question

analysis. Probably the best way to locate a particular bit of information

quickly is to consult the questionnaires, find the section and question number

for the item which elicited the information desired and then locate the detailed analysis by means of those key numbers. Appendix C table numbers

are also listed on the questionnaires for each question.

The initials "DK" occasionally used in text tables stand for "Don't Know."

TABLES 2A & B

Organization Respondent's Title

Initial contact with a respondent firm was most often accomplished by first having the interviewer call the office of the president or other top executive

of the company. After explaining the purpose of the survey, he (often she)

asked to be referred to a person in the organization who would be most

likely to give knowledgeable answers about the use of measurement in company operations. In about 82 percent of the contacts, the interviewer was re- ferred to a high-level managerial employee. Almost the same proportion of managers answered the questionnaire for companies in all three size categories. Persons in technical or managerial-technical positions were designated

as corporate spokesmen, each in about 5 percent of the interviews. Technically-oriented personnel most often represented their organizations in the Forestry/Fisheries, Mining and Communications industries (10-12% each).

TABLES 3A & B

Geographical Locations of Respondents

Respondent companies were chosen at random from the Social Security

Administration listings of all organizations within the same SIC number. In441-628 0-71—
58 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

dustry representation, not geographical location, was the chief consideration

in drawing the sample. As a result of this approach, the largest representations were drawn from the most populous states. The only state in which no

interviews were carried out was Hawaii. In most states the proportion of in- terviews was quite equally divided amongst the three size categories of organizations. Only in New York state was there a considerably larger representation in the "250 or more" employees category than in the two smaller

classes. A partial table of the distribution of interviews by size of firm in the seven most heavily represented states will give a good idea of the geographical distribution of the survey coverage:

Number of employees

1 to 19

20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent New York 1 8.8 1 10.3 1 17.3 12.1

California 11.2 12.3 12.5 12.0 Texas 8.5 8.1 7.2 7.9

Pennsylvania 4.1 4.9 6.7 5.2

Illinois 4.4 4.3 6.8 5.2 New Jersey 2.5 5.3 4.0 3.9 Massachusetts 3.3 3.2 4.1 3.6

1 Percent of total sample in that size class.

Not all states had respondents in all industry categories, but it is believed

that representation was equitably distributed. Quotas by industry were based on data taken from County Business Patterns. This method of deriving sample sizes led to one quota worthy of mention

here—the number of interviews taken in the agricultural production industry

in California. The unexpectedly large total percentage for this state was due

primarily to the type of farms located in that area. Since the number of employees was used as the basis for size definition, the respondent firms selected were largely determined by the kinds of crops grown and the number of la- borers hired to tend them. Crops grown in California (i.e., fruits, vegetables)

require a much larger proportion of human labor than does the grain grown

in the Midwest, for example.

TABLES 4A & B

Q. 1-1 Maybe you have heard talk going around lately that the United States might adopt the metric

system of measurement. Have you heard anything

about this?

Seventy-six percent of the population surveyed had heard something about

the possibility that the U.S. might adopt the metric system of measurement.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 59

More large companies (87%) had heard of it than small ones (68%). The

least knowledgeable industry was Agriculture (59% of their own group said

they had heard something) while the most well informed were those in the

Utilities industry (87%). A small text table will compare the proportions of knowledgeability claimed by representatives in the various industries:

Percent having heard of

possible adoption

Utilities 87 Wholesale Trade 85 Real Estate 84 Communication 84

Insurance 79 Finance 76

Retail Trade 76

Percent having heard of

possible adoption

Mining 75 Construction 73

Services 73 Transportation 69

Forestry/Fisheries 68

Agriculture 59

These figures are quoted at this length because they will be of some help in interpreting the positions taken by these industries in their answers to later questions.

Conclusion: The idea of conversion to the metric system was not new

questions about it came as no surprise to 76 per cent of the population of

interest.

TABLES 5A & B

Q. 1-2 (If you have heard of possible conversion to metric system,) what have you heard?

Of those who said they had had some earlier knowledge of possible conversion to the metric system, the largest group (45%) had little recollection

for the source of what they had "heard." Those who said they had "read"

something (33%) were most likely to have seen it in a business or trade magazine (17%) or in the newspaper (24%). Television and radio were

hardly mentioned as media for obtaining information of this kind. Spokesmen

for small companies were more likely to have "heard" something (52%)

than large company respondents (41%). Company spokesmen for middlesized firms were least likely to have "read" anything (30% compared to 36% for large company men). Only in the Forestry and Fisheries industry

did more respondents claim to have "read" than to have "heard" something

about conversion to the metric system.

TABLES 6A & B

Q. 1-3 If one of your friends asked you what the metric

system is, what would you tell him?

This question was intended to help the surveyors assess the level of the respondent's personal knowledge of the metric system. Explanations were
60 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

then classified as shown below. A glance at the figures will reveal that large

company spokesmen were more knowledgeable than those from small companies.

Answer

Number of employees

1 to

19

20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Full explanation 9 10 17 12

Partial explanation 53 61 68 61 Don't Know 29 22 9 20

Incorrect definition given 5 4 4 4

Thirty-four percent of the small businessmen, 26 percent of the middlesized business representatives, but only 13 percent of the large corporation

spokesmen were poorly informed about the metric system when initially contacted by an interviewer. Those most likely to have indicated they were

poorly informed about metric measurement were associated with Agriculture

and Forestry/Fisheries—32 percent and 37 percent as compared with 20 per- cent for the entire sample population.

TABLES 7-8 A & B

Q. 1-4 Have you ever used the metric system yourself?

Q. 1-5 In what way did you use it?

Over half (54% ) of those interviewed had used the metric system at some

time. Again, the lowest percentage of prior usage was among the small busi- nessmen.

Had used metric system previously:

Organizations withPercent

1-19 employees 42

20-249 employees 51 250+ employees 69

Those industries in which a majority of spokesmen stated they had had no

experience with use of the metric system were
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 61

Percent

Agriculture 54

Forestry/Fisheries 53 Construction 53

Retail Trade 49 Real Estate 50

With the exception of Construction, it seemed that those industries farthest from manufacturing had the highest percentages of nonusage.

Of those who had had experience with the metric system, the most fre- quent usage had been in the following places:

Place Percent of users only

School 59 Work 38 Armed Services 7 Foreign Travel 13 Hobbies 4

Of those respondents who had used the metric system previously, those in the Forestry/Fisheries (44% ), Construction (44% ), Transportation (44% ), Wholesale Trade (43%) and Mining (43%) industries had the largest per- centages of previous users in the work category. Those in Insurance (15%)

and Finance (21%) least often said they had used the metric system on the

job.

TABLES 9-1 1A & B

Q. 6 & 6a 6. Does the metric system have any advantages or dis- advantages that you know of? 6a. What are these?

Only about 60 percent of the sample population said they were aware of any advantages or disadvantages to the metric system. That 60 percent cited advantages about 20 percent more often than disadvantages (1496 versus 998 mentions).

The greatest advantage of the metric system was said to be that it is easier to use. Appreciation for its "accuracy" and its uniformity with measurement

systems in use elsewhere in the world were also cited. In proportion to the number of respondents contacted within those industries, more advantages were cited by firms in the Communications, Finance, and Insurance industries. Utilities and Mining firms had high percentages citing disadvantages.
62 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Within the 60 percent saying there were advantages/disadvantages the categories of response cited most often and the industries citing these most fre- quently were:

Advantages

Easier to use Forestry/Fisheries (64% ), Real Estate (57%

)

Uniformity Finance (42% ), Services (30% ) "Accuracy" Communication (33%

)

Disadvantages

Difficult to convert Forestry/Fisheries (45%), Real Estate (43%)

Expensive to convert Forestry/Fisheries (18%), Mining (16%)

TABLES 12A & B

Q. 1-7 How do you think it would affect your company if the United States decided to adopt the metric system?

The attitude expressed in answers to this question was generally that of acceptance of the idea. Few spokesmen (even in Real Estate, less than one

third of the industry) anticipated that their firms would experience much, if any, serious difficulty in converting to the metric system, but more large cor- porations foresaw trouble than did small businessmen. Fifty-one percent of the total sample gave answers indicating no particular concern at the pros- pect of national adoption of the metric system, 33 percent mentioned some

adverse aspect. Twenty-six percent of the population were classified in the "Don't Know" or "No Answer" categories to this question.

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent Adoption of metric system would affect company not at all or very little 33 28 23 28

Just would take time to get used to it 16 24 28 23 Tools have to be changed 5 4 6 5 Educational problems 3 6 8 5 Confusion 4 3 5 4 Expensive 5 6 10 7 Disastrous 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8

Other adverse remark 8 11 15 11 Specific beneficial remark 5 7 8 6

By industry, initial reactions to the idea of conversion were strongest among

those cited on page 63:
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 63

Highest percents Lowest percents

Would affect industry very little, if at all Takes time to get used to it Tools have to be changed

Educational Problems

Confusion (in change period)

Expensive

Disastrous

Finance 49 Real Estate 41 Forestry/Fisheries... 16

Forestry/Fisheries. . . 16 Communication 8

Wholesale Trade. ... 12

Insurance 2 Wholesale Trade .... 2

Utilities 6 Finance 13 Insurance 2 Agriculture 2 Insurance 2 Insurance 0

Construction. . . . 3 Real Estate 0

Agriculture 2 Finance 2

This question was asked in a majority of cases before any educational

materials had been sent to respondents. The answers given thus represented

mostly the attitudes toward, and state of knowledge about, the metric system

that existed because of previous interest or contacts.

QUESTIONNAIRES IIA AND SIB. CURRENT USE OF

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS IN COMPANY OUTPUTS

After the initial contact and administration of attitude and knowledge

questions, an appointment was made with respondents to complete the remainder of the questionnaire (sections II, III, and IV). In the interim,

informative materials were sent to the respondents concerning the metric

system and mentioning certain specific questions which would be asked

during the second call. Section II of the questionnaire deals with the current use of measurement

systems in company outputs. Respondents were admonished to answer these

questions in terms of their domestic activities unless foreign operations were

specified. One form of this section of the questionnaire was drafted for product related firms (Form A) and another form for service related firms (Form

B). The forms were substantially the same and differed only in that the questions were designed to be appropriate for the industry output. Product related

industrial groups included: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Mining, Construction, Utilities, Wholesale Trade, and Retail Trade. This group was asked

the questions on Form IIA.

Service related industry groups included: Transportation, Communications,

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services. This group was questioned

using schedule IIB. The table on the next page presents the populations of product and service related firms which received each form of section II.
64 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Forms IIA & IIB

questionnaire form

Number of employees

1 to 19 20-249 250+ Total

NumberPer- cent NumberPer- cent NumberPer- cent Number

Per- cent

IIA Product related 352 14 365 14 371 14 1,088

1,475

42

IIB Service related 499 19.5 498 19.5 478 19 58

Total 851 33 863 34 849 33 2,563 100

Thus, nearly 60 percent of the total population (evenly distributed by size class) was administered the service-related form of section II, based on "a

priori" evaluation of their probable activities.

TABLES 14A & B

Q. IIA & B-l Could you please give me a brief rundown of your company's major activities?

When asked this question, 74 percent 1 of all respondents listed a service

activity as one of the major activities of their company, while 40 percent

listed a product activity. The proportion of service-to-product activities remained fairly constant among the different size classes. One percent of all respondents listed a major activity which was classified as neither product nor service. These percentages indicate that the "a priori" evaluations of firms as service-related or product-related over-estimated the percentage of productrelated firms. Since the product-related questionnaire (IIA) was the more

inclusive of the two forms, no data escaped. Some firms were asked questions, however, which probably were not applicable to their operations so

that an unusually large proportion of "No Answers" appears in many appendix tables as a result. Eight of the 13 industries in the nonmanufacturing population showed a majority of respondents claiming that their companies' major activities were

primarily service oriented:

These percentages will add to more than 100 percent since any responding firm was permitted to mention a

service and/or product and/or other activity.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 65

Percent firms within

that industry

Insurance 100 Real Estate 97 Finance 96

Transportation 96 Communications 96

Construction 92

Services 90

Utilities 86

In the remaining five industry groups, product activities were said to be

the major functions

Percent firms within

that industry

Mining 83

Retail Trade 78 Wholesale Trade 75

Forestry/ Fisheries 74

Agriculture 68

Several of the industry groups which were heavily product-related also had

high percentages of firms which listed service-related activities. These data

show that product-oriented industry groups had greater diversity of interests than did companies oriented primarily to service.

TABLES 15-1 6 A & B

Q. IIA & B—2 Do you quote any prices on measurements such

as length, area, or volume?

Q. IIA & B—3 How about quoting prices based on other measure- ments such as weight, temperature, or thermal content?

To determine current use of measurement systems in actual sales of products or services, all respondents were asked if they used measurement units when quoting prices.

More than half (53%) of all respondents in all size classes stated that they quoted prices based on length, area, or volume, but only 36 percent said

that they made price estimates based on weight, temperature, or thermal

content. Respondents (44%) in the 250+ employee class said their firms
66 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

used weight, temperature, or thermal content when quoting prices more often than did spokesmen for the 2 smaller classes of organizations.

Quotation of prices

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250 + Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

a. By length, area, volume: Quoted prices 51 54 54 53 Did not quote prices 48 46 45 46

b. By weight, temperature:

Quoted prices 30 35 44 36 Did not quote prices 69 64 55 63

This information is an indication of the degree of usage of measurements

in actual dealings with consumers or customers. Sixty-three percent of all firms said they quoted prices based on measurement units ("YES" to Question 2 and/or Question 3). This has implications for consumer education and

employee education.

Number of employees

Firms quoting prices 1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Based on length, area, volume and/or weight,

temperature 533 63 549 64 537 63 1,625 63

Percentages of firms quoting prices based on measurement units varied

widely between industry groups. With an average of 53 percent of the respondents citing prices based on length, area, or volume, and 36 percent on

weight, temperature, or thermal content, it would be expected that some

industries would use the two groups of measurements more often than the mean.

It will be noted that the Wholesale Trades and Transportation industries appear in both tables (p. 67), indicating that member firms used a greater

variety of measurement units than companies doing other kinds of work. The

Finance, Insurance and Services groups claimed the least use of measurement

units of any kind.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 67

Industries Most Often Quoting Prices Based on Length,

Area, Volume

Industry group Percent firms in that industry

Construction 86 Wholesale Trade 65 Real Estate 63 Transportation 60

Industries Most Often Quoting Prices Based on Weight,

Temperature, Thermal Content

Industry group Percent firms in that industry

Mining 72

Agriculture 61 Forestry/Fisheries 58 Wholesale Trade 53 Transportation 51

TABLES 17-20 A & B

Q. IIA-4 I'm going to read some measurement dimensions. Could

you tell me which measurement system—that is, U.S. or metric—you use to describe each dimension when your

product(s) (is) (are) sold?

Q. IIB-4 I'm going to read some measurement dimensions. Could

you tell me which measurement system—that is, U.S. or metric—you use to quote prices for each of these dimensions?

Tables 17-20 show in detail the percentages of firms in the population of

interest which said they currently used metric measurements in the U.S. as part of their sales related measuring activities. The following text tables (A

through C) show highlights from Tables 17-20: Metric usage for various

measurement dimensions by industry groups. In all of these text tables, the term "some metric" usage covers all responses > 0 percent metric including

"indeterminate" and "100 percent metric." Zero and 100 percent usage were

considered to be most significant of all classifications and have been treated separately in the following analytical text tables.
68 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

A. Extent of Metric Usage in U.S. to Describe Products or Quote

Prices

Metric Usage in the U. S. to Describe Products or Quote Prices 1

Measurement

dimension

0 Percent

metric usage 2

100 Percent

metric usage 2

Some usage (including 100 percent)

Number of employees

Total sampleTotal sample

1-19 20-249 250+ Total sample

Length/Area 43 0.8 2.9 3.2 6.9 4.4 Volume 31 0.6 2.0 3.4 4.7 4.0 Weight 35 1.1 2.9 3.7 8.8 5.2 Temperature 11 0.2 0.3 0.8 3.1 1.4

1 Percentages in this table will not add to 100 percent. Responses not represented here are "NO ANSWER"

and "DIMENSION NOT RELEVANT."

2 Differences in responses between employer size groups were so small that only the total sample population per- centages are shown here. For detail, see complete Tables 17-20A in app. C. (Can be purchased from NTIS under COM-71-00689.)

• The vast majority of nonmanufacturing firms use no metric units in connection with sales of a product or service. • A somewhat greater percentage of large firms reported use of metric

units than small or medium sized firms. • Less than 1 percent of the sample firms (see text table above) were

currently using the metric system for 100 percent of their product

descriptions or sales quotations.

• A larger percentage of firms said they used metric units to describe

weight, length/area, and volume, than temperature.

• The metric system is currently being used to some extent in this country to describe products sold or to quote prices: Approximately

8 percent of the responding firms indicated "some" use of metric

measurements. The table below shows the numbers and percentages

of the total sample population which had at least some metric usage

for any of the measurement dimensions.

Number of employees

1

- 19 20-249 250+ Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

44 5 57 7 103 12 204 8
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 69

B. "Some" Metric Use in U.S. Sales:

The percentages of firms which reported using metric units "sometimes" to quote price or describe products varied by industry groups. Those industries which used metric measurement at all were fairly consistent in applying it to

all five kinds of measurement units. (See histograms on p. 70.)

Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Mining, Forestry /Fisheries, and Transportation mostly had greater percentages of firms currently using some metric

units in connection with sales. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate made

almost no use of metric units. Communications was the only industry in which there were no firms using metric units for any measurement dimension.

C. 100 Percent Metric Use for U.S. Sales:

Examinations of the percentages of firms within the different industries which said they employed metric units exclusively when quoting price or

describing products, showed that industries with 100 percent metric use cor- respond fairly well to those claiming "some" use. (See histograms on p. 71.)

Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, and Services were the only industries in which some respondents used 100 percent metric measurement for all physical dimensions during U.S. sales. Agriculture and Utilities which had only

moderate representations of firms using metric "sometimes", had some of the highest proportions of companies using SI exclusively in domestic commerce.

In these cases, the figures mean that nearly all the firms in these 2 industries which used metric at all, used metric measurements exclusively.

TABLES 21 A & B

Q. IIA & B—5 Are there any engineering or size standards which

you use in selling your (services) (products)?

Thirty-four percent of all respondents said they used engineering standards in connection with sales. A greater proportion of large firms said that they used engineering standards in connection with sales than did either of

the smaller employer classes.

Use of engineering standards during sales of product or service

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Use 27 33 41 34 Do Not Use 57 51 46 51 No Answer/Don't Know 16 16 13 15
70 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

PERCENT FIRMS HAVING "SOME" METRIC USAGE IN

SALES-RELATED ACTIVITIES (BY INDUSTRY)

Percent

Within 5

Industry

E F G H

Industry Group

J K L M

10 TEMPERATURE

Percent

Within 5

Industry

A. Agriculture G. Utilities B. Forestry / Fisheries H. Wholesale Trade

C. Mining I. Retail Trade

D. Construction J. Finance

E. Transportation K. Insurance

F. Communications L. Real Estate M. Services industry group with highest percentage for that dimension.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 71

PERCENT FiRMS HAVING 100% METRIC USAGE FOR

SALES-RELATED ACTIVITIES (BY INDUSTRY)

4

3

Percent

of 2

Industry

1

0

Percent

of 2 Industry

4

3 Percent

of 2 Industry

1

E F G H

Industry Group

E F G H

Industry Group

E F G H

Industry Group

TEMPERATURE

5W

VOLUME *

E F G H

Industry Group

A. Agriculture

B. Forestry / Fisheries C. Mining

D. Construction

E. Transportation

F. Communications

G. Utilities industry group with highest percentage for that dimension

H. Wholesale Trade

I. Retail Trade

J. Finance

K. Insurance

L. Real Estate M. Services

M
72 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

A number of individual industries showed a substantial representation of companies using engineering or size standards in selling services or products,

but only 2 had clear majorities. The 4 with the largest numbers of users and

the 2 with the fewest users are shown below

Use engineering or

size standards in sales

Percent total sample population

within that industry

Mining 59

Utilities 52 Wholesale Trades 48

Construction 45 Finance 8 Insurance 8

All 13 industries had at least a few firms which said they used engineering or size standards during sales activities.

TABLES 22A & B

O. HA & B-5b (If "YES" to "Are there any engineering standards you use in selling your (product) (service)?")

What measurement system (are those) (is that)

standard (s) based on?

It will be recalled that in answering Q. 5, 34 percent of the population

stated they used engineering standards in connection with sales. That 34 per- cent (N = 863) were then asked which measurement system was the basis for the engineering standards used. A majority (81%) of the subpopulation stated that their engineering

standards were based on the U.S. system. However, about 5% said their engineering standards were based on the metric system, and slightly over 6

percent listed both the U.S. and metric systems. Less than 1 percent of those

queried said that they did not know which system was the basis for the standard(s).

Measurement System Used

for Engineering Standards

Number of employees

1-19 (N = 233)

20-249 (N = 282) 250+

(N=348)

Total (N=862)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

U.S 82 83 79 81 4 4 6 5 Other 3 1 2 2 Both U.S. & metric 5 6 8 6
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 73

It will be noted that there was no appreciable difference in usage according to size class. By industry, nine of the thirteen groups had at least one firm which was

using engineering standards based on the metric system. Because of the small

numbers in proportion to each industry population, percentages tend to be

misleading and therefore, number of respondents is given in the following

text table as well as the percentage of that industry. Only the largest numbers

of users are shown here. Industries not listed had one or two representatives each. (Industry percentages shown in the text table are for the total sample

within that industry. Percentages given in the full table in appendix C are for those within each industry who stated that they used engineering standards.)

Industry users of metric-based Percent total sample

engineering or size standards Number population within

that industry

Using metric-based standards only

Services 13 2

Utilities 10 16

Retail Trade 8 2 Wholesale Trade 7 2 Using both U.S.-and metric-based standards Wholesale Trade 15 3 Services 18 3 Mining 7 6

Retail Trade 6 1 Transportation 6 2 Construction 5 2

In summary, of the total sample 34 percent used engineering or size standards in sales; of the 34 percent, 1 1 percent used metric standards or U.S. and metric standards; 82 percent of the engineering standards users employed U.S. standards exclusively.

TABLES 23A & B

Q. IIA & B-6 Could you discuss for a moment the reasons why

your company uses the measurement units or standards you just mentioned?

The measurement system employed (either U.S. or metric) was chiefly

used because:

Percent total sample

It is traditional 50 Customers demand it 14 The industry has agreed to use it 15 The suppliers determine it through the materials they provide 8

441-628 0-71—
74 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

No other answer was offered by a significant number of respondents. All but one of the reasons given were concerned with influences or pressure from

outside the company.

There were 268 respondents who had stated in their answers to Qs. 4 or 5b that they used "some" metric units or standards in connection with sales of products or services. The text table below shows the percentages of response from this group for each category compared with the percentages of response from those respondents who had no usage of metric units or standards, and with the total sample:

Percent firms Percent firms Percent Reasons for use of present with "some" with 0 percent total measurement system metric 1 metric 1 sample 1 (N = 269) (N=2294) (N = 2563)

Tradition 44 51 50 Customers demand it 28 12 14 Industry agreement 27 14 15 To meet foreign competition 6 0.1 0.7 Improve quality/performance 4 0.1 0.5

Suppliers determine it 15 7 8 Law requires it 4 2 2 To meet domestic competition 2 1 0.9 Other 16 5 6 Don't Know/No Answer 5.4 33 30

1 Percentages will add to more than 100 percent because respondents were allowed up to three mentions of

reasons.

It should be noted that the 268 "metric users" include respondents who

made only very minor use of metric units or standards. Therefore, the proportions of firms responding in some answer categories are similar to the proportions of "nonmetric" firms and to the total sample. The 2 responses, to meet foreign competition, and "improve quality/performance," however, were

given almost exclusively by "metric users."

The highest response categories for "metric users" were

Tradition 44

Customer demand 28

Industry agreement 27

Suppliers determine 15

Nine of the 13 industry groups showed majorities stating that "tradition" was the strongest reason for their use of the U.S. system of measurement.

Those that did not have such majorities showed even larger percentages in the "No Answer" category indicating perhaps that measurement was a less
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 75

significant factor in their operations. The Finance, Communication, Insur- ance, and Services groups cases in point.

The Retail Trades were most sensitive to "customer demand" (20%), and

Mining and Utilities cited "Industry Agreement" most frequently (about

30% each.)

"Suppliers" had the most influence on measurement system usage in the Wholesale and Retail Trades and in Construction (12-13% each).

TABLES 24A & B

Q. IIA & B—7 Do you ever package any goods or products?

Dimensions may refer to the product itself or to the descriptors on the package only. With food products, for example, translation of the weight or

size of items contained in the package into metric units is sufficient and the edibles themselves need be neither separately labeled nor altered in size to fit different measurement units. Twenty-three percent of the total population stated that they packaged

goods or products, but the majority of firms (76%) said they did not. A

greater percentage of firms in the 250 or more employees class said they carried out this activity than in either of the 2 smaller employer groups.

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Do package products 14 23 32 23 Do not package > 85 76 67 76

Four industry groups showed greater frequency of product packaging than

the average industry group

Percent firms in that industry

packaging products

Forestry/Fisheries 52 Wholesale Trade 49

Agriculture 37

Retail Trade 32

Five other industry groups showed low incidence of product packaging

activities.
76 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Percent firms in that industry not packaging products

Utilities Insurance ... Real Estate. . . Transportation Finance96

98

9190

90

Product-related industries had, as might be expected, higher percentages of

firms concerned with packaging goods or products.

TABLES 25-27A & B

Q. IIA & B-7a What measurement units are used to describe the container or package? First of all for length or area? And volume? And weight?

The 23 percent (N = 586) of the total population which packaged goods

or products was asked about the measurement units they used to describe

their packages or containers. The measurement system used by those firms

for each type of package dimension are shown below.

Measurement system used for packages or containers by those firms that package

goods or products

(N = 586)

Package dimension

Length/area Volume Weight

Percent Percent Percent No Answer/Don't Know 44 45 22 U.S. system 50 49 71 Metric system 1.4 1.5 1.2 Both U.S. and metric 4 4 5

Examination of the text table above reveals that the overwhelming majority of firms used containers or packages described in U.S. units—regardless

of package dimension required. There was a little use of metric units, however.The unusually large "NO ANSWER" category of responses to these questions indicated that that particular package measurement description was not

relevant to the output of that portion of the responding companies. If we

look at the proportion of "U.S." to "METRIC" to "BOTH U.S. AND

METRIC" for only those companies for which a particular package dimension description was relevant, the percentages become:
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 77

Measurement system

Relevant descriptions only

Length/area Volume Weight

Percent Percent Percent

u.s 90 89 91 Metric 2 3 1.5 Both U.S. and metric 7 8 7

(N=329) (N=322) (N = 454)

More firms reported packages described in "both U.S. and metric" units than in metric units only, but SI did have appreciable representation in all commercially used dimensions. Temperature is not a package characteristic. Histograms (p. 78) present the percentages of firms within each industry

which use metric units and the percentages which use U.S. and metric units

to describe package dimensions. Note that these figures are based on the total sample populations within each industry, not just those who said they package products.

The use of metric units within industry groups to describe package dimensions, either alone or in combination with U.S. units, showed weight descriptors to be the most frequently employed. All 3 kinds of metric dimension

descriptors were more often used in combination with U.S. units than they were alone.

It will be noted that the firms which most frequently employed metric measurements exclusively for package dimensions were the Wholesale and Retail

Trades and Services groups. These industries, of course, included various

phases of the pharmaceutical industry which has been on the metric standard for a number of years. The largest groups of "both U.S. and metric" users were in the same

industries that used metric exclusively on packages. Forestry/Fisheries,

Mining, and Transportation also became significant packagers in the dual

dimensioning class.

TABLES 28 & 29A

Q. IIA-13 and IIB-8 Does your organization have any licensee or

subsidiary operations in foreign countries?

Q. IIA-14 and IIB-9 (If YES) What measurement system is used

in your foreign operations?

About 1 1 percent of all responding firms stated that they had foreign

licensees or subsidiaries. A larger percentage of firms with 250 or more

employees had licensees/subsidiaries than firms in either of the smaller size classes.
78 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

PERCENT FIRMS WITHIN EACH INDUSTRY USING

"METRIC UNITS" OR USING "BOTH U.S. AND METRIC

UNITS" TO DESCRIBE PACKAGES (BY MEASUREMENT

DIMENSION)

Percent

of Industry

Industry Group

A. Agriculture H. Wholesale Trade

B. Forestry / Fisheries I. Retail Trade

C. Mining J. Finance

D. Construction K. Insurance

E. Transportation L. Real Estate

F. Communications M. Services

G. Utilities
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 79

Foreign licensee/subsidiary

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Had 2 5 27 11 Did not have 95 91 68 85

All firms which stated that they had licensee or subsidiary operations in foreign countries (N = 291, 11%) were asked about the measurement system

used in these foreign operations. The majority of those firms (61% of the subgroup or about 8% of the total sample) said that they use metric "sometimes" for foreign operations: 36 percent used metric exclusively and 25 per- cent used both U.S. and metric. Metric usage appeared to be related to the

size of the responding firms

Measurement system used

in foreign operations

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

(N=17) (N=42) (N = 232) (N = 291)

Percent Percent Percetn Percen'

U.S 23 38 22 25

Metric 23 26 39 36 Both U.S. and metric 29 12 27 25

In the 1-19 employee size class, the largest percentage (29% ) of firms

used "both U.S. and metric" in foreign operations. There were nearly equal

percentages of these small firms in all these categories of measurement

system usage, however. In the 20-249 employee size class, the largest per- centage of firms (38%) used the U.S. system exclusively in foreign operations, with only 12 percent using both systems. In the group of largest firms, the highest percentage of firms used the metric system exclusively (39% ) for foreign operations.

If the combined foreign operation data are examined for only those

respondents who answered "metric," or "both U.S. and metric" (p. 80), the amount of metric usage shows an even more striking difference. The differences

between size classes of firms becomes more apparent. A greater percentage

of the smallest companies use both measurement systems simultaneously,

but the largest companies were more prone to use metric exclusively in foreign operations. These figures may reflect either greater flexibility in operation or differences in size of investments abroad—the larger the operational facility, the more urgent the need to adapt to the customs of the host
80 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

(N=17) (N=42) (N = 232) (N = 291)

Metric OR U.S. and Metric

Percent

53

Percent

38

Percent

65

Percent

61

country. Medium-sized companies have often passed the point of maximum

flexibility in company activities but have not yet reached a size where adaptation becomes mandatory. Medium-sized firms in this study often reflected the most conservative point of view of the 3 employer groups.

TABLES 28 & 29B

There was wide variation among industry groups in terms of the percentages of firms which had foreign licensees or subsidiaries. The 2 measurement

system (s) used in foreign operations were also employed in varying proportions by the different industries.

Percent using each measurement

Percent Firms in that system for foreign operations 3 Industry group 1 industry having

licensees or

subsidiaries U.S. Metric U.S. &

Metric

Number Percent

Wholesale 102 24 22 42 28 Mining 25 23 28 28 40

Finance 17 14 23 18 12

Services 70 11 21 33 24

Transportation 29 11 34 31 21 Insurance 2 6 10 17 17 17 Forestry 2 2 10 50 50 0

Utilities 2 3 5 33 33 0

Retail 18 4 17 33 33 Communications 2 1 4 100 0 0 Construction 13 4 23 69 8 Real Estate 2

1 3 100 0 0

Agriculture 2 3 3 67 33 0

Total 291

1 Listed in decreasing order of percent firms in that industry having licensees or subsidiaries in foreign countries.

2 Note that these industries have fewer than 10 firms which had licensees or subsidiaries and are, therefore, not

discussed below in terms of measurement system used in foreign operations.

3 Percentages across these 3 columns may not add to 100 percent because the "Don't Knows" are not shown.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 81

There was little consistency among industries with respect to the relative percentages of firms which used either measurement system. In all groups, however, a greater percentage of firms used either U.S. exclusively or metric

exclusively (combining responses of "U.S." and "METRIC") than used a combination of the two. When the responses "METRIC" and "BOTH U.S. AND METRIC" are combined it is apparent that a majority of firms used metric at least part of

the time while only a relatively small percentage used the U.S. system exclusively.

The construction industry is notable for having the highest percentage of

firms using metric exclusively in foreign operations and the lowest 2 using

both U.S. and metric.

Thus, in general: Firms having licensee or subsidiary operations in foreign

countries are more likely to use one measurement system exclusively in for- eign operations, rather than to use both. However, these firms are also more

likely to use the metric system at least partially in foreign operations than

they are to use the U.S. system exclusively.

TABLES 30A & B

Qs. IIA-15 and IIB-10 Why is that system used?

The 291 respondents who stated that their firms had licensees or subsidiaries in foreign countries were asked why they used the measurement system

they had named. The answer given most frequently was that the system being

used was the national standard in the country of operation (51%). This

response was the favored reply in all employer size classes. The next most frequently given response varied according to size class. The measurement system referred to is obvious from the statement of the answer.

Number of employees in firm Most commonly given response by size class

1-19 (N = 17)

20-249 (N = 42) . .

250 +

(N = 232) . . .

All employees

(N = 291). . .

National standard in that country

Items originate in U.S

Foreign customers understand

National standard in that country

Easy to convert Items originate in U.S

National standard in that country

Foreign customers understand Most efficient system

Items originate in U.S

National standard in that country

Foreign customers understand

Items originate in U.S

- Among the industry groups having more than 10 firms which had licensees or subsidiaries.
82 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The industries most frequently naming the reasons for measurement usage

shown in the table on the preceding page were

Percent firms having Reason Industry foreign

licensees/subsidiaries

Number Percent

National standard in that country Mining 17 68 Wholesale Trade 59 58 Services 37 53

Retail Trade 10 56

Transportation 11 38 Items originate in U.S Transportation 5 17 Wholesale Trade 9 9 Services 3 4

Foreign customers understand Wholesale Trade 10 10

Services 5 7 Easy to convert Wholesale Trade 7 7 Services 4 6

The U.S. firms were evidently willing to adapt to foreign measurement to some extent, most often when the importing country required it, but an

appreciable percentage implied they felt the world should adapt to the U.S. It can be inferred that many of them probably did not really know how foreign

purchasers felt about the measurement system used or how much sales might

have been affected because of the system used in fabrication or labeling.

TABLES 3 1-32A & B

Q IIA-16 and IIB-11 Did measurement considerations influence

your decision to operate a foreign licensee or subsidiary?

Q. IIA-16a and IIB-llb How did measurement considerations in- fluence your decision?

Only 0.2 percent of the total population of firms indicated that measure- ment considerations had had any effect on their decision to operate or not

operate a licensee or subsidiary in a foreign country. Just 4 respondents out

of the total of 2563 answered this question affirmatively and each respondent was in a different industry group. So small a number of replies did not yield

meaningful information.

TABLES 33-34A & B

Q. 11A-18 and IIB-12 In general do you think the measurement

units or standards used for foreign goods

have affected the sales of those goods in the U.S.? Q. IIA-19 and IIB-12a Why is that? More than half of the total population of interest (56%) stated that they
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 83

thought sales of foreign goods in this county have not been affected, 35 per- cent gave a noncommittal "Don't Know" response, but only 12 percent

believed that the importation of foreign goods to this country had been influ- enced by the measurement system used in fabrication or labeling. These per- centages were distributed fairly evenly across size classes with the exception

that the weight of opinion from the largest firms (58% ) was strongest in the "no effect on sales" category. The importations referred to in these answers were those goods imported for sale to others, those imported for the corporate use of these establishments as well as the competitive lines in the respondent's own fields of industrial or commercial enterprise.

Those industry groups with the highest percentages of firms stating that they thought sales of foreign goods in this county have been affected by the measurement units or standards used (Real Estate, Finance, and Utilities), are industries which describe themselves as nonproduct industries. The industries with the highest percentages of firms stating that sales of foreign goods

in this county have not been affected by the measurement units or standards

used are highly product related (Wholesale and Retail Trades). This is not what might have been expected.

The reasons given for thinking that foreign goods did pose problems which

were related to their base measurement system were chiefly that parts are difficult to obtain, are not interchangeable with those of U.S. products, and are generally more expensive than those made locally. Furthermore, size differ- ences in parts are confusing to many clients. Many foreign products are converted to U.S. measurement equivalents when imported, respondents said,

because this conversion is not a difficult process. Measurement, in general was said to be of little concern to the Agricultural organizations, the Wholesale/Retail Trades, or Services because of the ease of conversion.

The industries chiefly offering the answers summarized above were as fol- lows:

Of the 12 percent who said measurements for Industry with highest

foreign goods had affected sales: percentage

Different measures a disadvantage Construction 23

Parts not interchangeable Transportation 37

Parts difficult to obtain Mining 22 Wholesale 17 System not understood in U.S Agriculture 37 Wholesale 31

Of the 53 percent who said measurements for Industry with highest

foreign goods had not affected sales: percentage

Measurement not a concern Forestry/Fisheries 60

Foreign products converted in U.S Transportation 33 Wholesale 21
84 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Other industries had some representation in each of the areas detailed

above, but replies were in too small numbers to be considered representative.

Data presented here indicate one thing—in the U.S. there are some

difficulties, primarily associated with later repair, in buying goods from

abroad which have been fabricated to metric measurement standards. U.S. consumers have been willing to put up with these inconveniences and U.S. merchants have adapted to the demand by converting metric to U.S. units where such translation was necessary. Most goods bought as units do not

require immediate servicing and the need for replacement parts and inter- changeability is something not all buyers foresee. The kinds of goods which

have continuous interchange with the local economy are either imported to the U.S. in small numbers or a servicing capability has been established here

to meet the need. The foreign automobile servicing industry is a case in point.

Measurement units used in the manufacturing or processing of goods do

not greatly influence sales of foreign produced merchandise in the U.S. For

those goods which require a close interchange with the economy, special

accommodations have been developed. The U.S. measurement system, then,

offers little impediment to the importation of foreign goods.

Q. IIA-9 Does your company ever export any U.S. products to foreign countries?

Only those companies which received the product-related form II (IIA),

or those which indicated product activity, were asked about export activities (N=1477).

Export activities appeared to be related to company size: Approximately

41 percent of the largest firms within "product" industries had some export

activities as compared with 14 percent for medium-sized and 6 percent for small companies. Twenty percent (N = 298) of the 1477 respondents who

were asked this question reported some export activities. (This is 11% of the

total population.)

Members of 7 of the 13 sampled industries, as shown in the text table below, carried on considerable export activity. Those not listed either dealt with services only or with intangibles such as Finance, Real Estate, Communications, etc.

TABLE 35A & B

Exporters in

Percent of total within industry

having exports

Wholesale Trade Mining

Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries Retail Trade

Construction

Utilities

3834

209

96
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 85

TABLES 36-37 A & B

Q. IIA-9 When you export products, do you describe those products

with the same measurement units you use for U.S. sales? Q. IIA-9a Does this change present any problems?

The majority (64% ) of the 291 firms who exported goods or services said they used the same measurement units to describe exports as for U.S. sales and 12 percent "sometimes" did. A fairly large percentage (29%) changed

to SI for exports. (Metric measures would not have been appropriate for goods exported to Canada and other members of the British Commonwealth

at the time the survey was conducted.) Altogether, 32 percent (N = 96)

respondents "sometimes" or always use metric measurements for exports.

The largest firms more often reported incongruence between the measure- ment system used to describe products for U.S. sales and for exports than

medium and small sized companies did. A greater percentage of large firms

than either of the other groups reported the policy of "sometimes" using the same system for both markets, and "sometimes" changing. A smaller percent- age of large firms (59%) reported always using the same measurement

system for U.S. and export markets than either medium (76%) or small

sized firms (70% ), thus indicating greater marketing capabilities.

Within industry groups the percentages of exporting firms which followed

each of the three measurement policies with respect to exported goods were:

Percent exporting Percent exporting Percent exporting

firms using same firms using firms sometimes

Industry group system for different systems using same

U.S. & export U.S. & export system for both

U.S. & export

Agriculture (N=20) ........ 85 5 10 Mining (N= 36) 50 28 17 Construction (N = 26) 61 27 11 Wholesale Trade (N= 161) . .

63 22 12 Retail Trade (N=38) 82 10 5 Services (N = 9) 44 11 22 Total N = 290 of 298 exporters

Inspection of the above list shows that firms in Agriculture and the Retail

Trade were more likely to use the same system for both U.S. and export

sales than were members of other industry groups. The Mining (28%) and

Construction (27%) exporters had the largest percentages of firms which

changed measurement systems for export sales or services. When measurement practices of "not the same" and "sometimes the same"

as for U.S. sales are combined, it is apparent that large proportions of the exporting firms in Mining (45%), Services (44%), Construction (38%),

and Wholesale Trades (35% ) used metric measurements for their exports at least part of the time.
86 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

These exporting firms (N = 96) were further probed for problems associ- ated with changing or combining measurement systems. Although 57 percent

of this population stated that there were no problems, there again was variation among the different-sized firms. Greater percentages of large firms (64% ) and medium-sized firms (40% ) stated that changes in measurement systems for exports presented no problems at all. Specific problems cited by 35 percent of the sample fell into two

classes: problems associated with converting measurements and with maintaining dual systems.

Problems associated Number of employees

with measurement incongruence

1 19 (N=6)

20-249 (N=15)

250 +

(N=75)

Total (N = 96)

Percent Percent Percent Percent No problems, none 16 40 64 57 Conversion problems 17 33 23 24 Dual system 33 13 9 11

In the individual industries, a majority of firms in each stated that there were no problems associated with the use of two measurement systems for domestic and export sales. The proportions of firms giving each response

within each industry were roughly the same as for the total population.

The data imply that an exporting firm which uses one measurement system

for describing products in the U.S. and another for export sales is more

likely to convert from one system to the other than it is to use both systems

simultaneously.

The Mining and Wholesale Trade industries had the largest numbers of exporting firms which always or sometimes changed measurement systems for

their exports. Eighty-one percent of those Mining firms stated that this measurement policy presented no problems. Conversely, over 40 percent of the Wholesalers mentioned problems associated with using both measurement

systems.

TABLES 38-39A & B

Q. IIA-10 How about engineering standards, are they the same as for U.S. sales? Q. IIA-lOa Is this ever a problem for you?

A majority of the 298 exporters stated that they used the same engineering

standards for U.S. products as for exports. Less than a sixth used different engineering standards for exports, and some said their operations didn't need

any engineering standards for either kind of sales. Only 4 percent of all exporters claimed they sometimes used one engineering
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 87

standard for U.S. sales and another for exports. The difference between this low percentage and the 12 percent who "sometimes" described products in SI

for export may indicate the relative difficulty involved in operating with two

engineering standards as compared with two kinds of labels or dimension

descriptions.

Congruence between engineering

Number of employees

standards for U.S. sales and

export sales 1-19 20-249 250+ Total (N=30) (N=71) (N=191) (N = 298)

Percent Percent Percent Percept Engineering standards: Same , 63 61 62 62 Not same 13 17 16 16 Sometimes same 0 6 4 4

The relative percentages of firms which followed each of the 3 policies

within each industry group were approximately the same as for the total sample population: The majority in all cases used the same engineering

standards for both domestic and foreign sales. Only 20 percent (N = 58) of all exporters (N=298) stated that engineering standards for exports were always or "sometimes" different from those

used for U.S. sales. When this subgroup was probed for problems associated

with changing engineering standards for exports, the majority of the small

and medium-sized companies gave no answer to the question.

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total (N=4) (N=16) (N = 38) (N=58)

Percent Percent Percent Percent No answer 100 62 18 36 No problems 0 19 53 40 Some problems 0 19 29 24

The majority of those who did answer, cited no problems in following this policy. A few firms in the medium and large employer classes said they had

had some difficulties with conversion and dual systems, but the proportion of these was too small to be significant.

Of the 14 mentions of either conversion or dual system as a problem in conducting export trade, 8 were in the Wholesale Trades.
88 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

TABLES 40-41 A & B

Q. IIA-1 1 Do you feel that the volume of your export sales ever depends on the measurement units you use? Q. IIA-1 la (If YES to Q. 1 1 ) To what extent?

Preceding questions had led respondents to think about the characteristics of any international trade in which they might have been engaged. They had

been asked about the kinds of measurement units used to describe the

exported products and the engineering standards which had been employed

either in the fabrication or the selling procedures for exported goods. In Qs.

11 and 11a the respondents were queried as to how much they thought tne use of U.S. measurement units and standards had affected the volume of goods exported—how much foreign resistance had there been to buying

goods fabricated to U.S. sizes. Only 9 percent (N=26) of the exporting firms indicated that they felt the volume of their export sales depended on the measurement system they used

to describe their goods. More large firms (12%) than medium (4%) or

small (0% ) indicated this dependence.

Within the Mining and Construction industries slightly higher proportions

of respondents thought that the volume of their export sales depended at

least to some extent on the measurement system used for their exports.

Twenty-three of the largest firms and 3 medium-sized companies gave the following reasons why they believed their export volume depended on the measurement system used:

Reasons export volume depends on measurement system 1 Number Percent

Competition 5 19 Country requires own system 10 38 Foreigners dislike conversion 5 19 Don't Know 2 8 No Answer 4 15

Total 26 100

1 Mostly to accommodate to foreign government and customer requirements.

The small numbers of respondents preclude separate analysis by industry

group except to say that almost half of those who mentioned the importance

of measurement units in exports were in the Wholesale Trades.

From the text table shown above, it appears that the chief reason for using SI was a feeling that if they wished to export goods to foreign countries, they

had to adapt to local requirements.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 89

TABLES 42-43 A & B

Q. IIA—12 How about engineering standards, do you feel that the volume of your export sales ever depends on the engineering standards you use? Q. IIA— 12a (If YES to Q. 12) To what extent?

Only 6 percent of the exporting population stated that they felt the volume

of their export sales was affected by the engineering standards used. More

large firms (7%) than medium (4%) or small (3%) saw standards as an

area of concern, but the majority (73%) of exporters said that engineering

standards had no effect on volume of sales. A relatively large percentage (18%) of the exporting firms gave no

answer to this question, indicating perhaps that they use no engineering

standards in connection with exports.

Relationship between engineering standards and volume of export sales

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Export volume: Depends on engineering standards 3 4 1 6 Does not depend on engineering standards 70 72 74 73

The 18 respondents (6% of all exporters) who recognized a link between

volume of export sales and the engineering standards used, were probed for extent of the relationship. Seven respondents were unable to elucidate further, and the other 1 1 responses were so varied that no central tendency

appeared. Neither was a pattern evident when those 11 respondents and their choices were tabulated by industry group. In summary, there may have been reasons why a few respondents thought

the kind of engineering standards used affected their export sales, but there was little unanimity in their opinions. This kind of scatter in responses

usually reflects uncertainty, perhaps even ignorance of the true causal facts, if indeed they exist at all. The unusually large percentage of "Don't Know"

answers tends to support this hypothesis.

Other nonmanufacturing exporter respondents may have in the majority

dealt in products where engineering standards had been required only in the equipment needed to produce the goods. The nonmanufacturing sector of the economy is largely devoted to extracting, processing, and service activities,

where the size of the final product depends largely on its origin in nature or

its manufacturing process.

441-628 0-71—
90 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

TABLES 44A & B

Q. IIA—17 To your knowledge, are the products that you sell in the U.S. also imported to this country by foreign firms?

This question was intended to determine the amount of competition that the U.S. nonmanufacturing industries experience from foreign imports. The

query was addressed to all firms that had been classified or identified as product-related. About 50 percent of the largest companies indicated that foreign imports did share their U.S. market. This suggested that the largest

companies both here and abroad are the mass producers of widely consumed

goods and are, therefore, probably competitive both in the U.S. and else- where.

Small and moderate sized companies, which deal much more frequently in specialty goods, had less competition from foreign imports—only about 40

percent acknowledged it.

Relationship between own product and foreign imports

Number of employees

1-19 (N = 499)

20-249 (N = 492) 250+

(N = 470)

Total (N=1461)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Product imported from foreign countries. . . . 37 39 50 42 Product not imported from foreign countries

52 49 40 47 No Answer 5 6 5 5 Don't Know 6 6 5 5

Slightly more than half of the firms in the distributive industries—Wholesale and Retail Trades-reported that the products they sold were also imported into the U.S. from foreign countries. Those industries in which the

largest number of firms indicated that the product they sold was not imported by foreign firms were Utilities (71% ) and Construction (65% ). In certain of the other industries (see table below) about half the firms

indicated either no competition from foreign imports or said they didn't know

of any. Those industries not listed in the text table were not in the productoriented part of the sample, i.e., Finance, Real Estate, et al.

It appeared that the industries most directly concerned with exports to other countries, such as Agriculture and the distributive industries were also those most affected by foreign products imported into the United States. Trade is, in other words, a 2-way street. Those activities dealing chiefly with

services—Utilities and Construction—were least subject to foreign competition in the U.S.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 91

i u yuui Kiiuwicugt. arc

the products you sell in the U.S. also imported

to this country by

foreign firms?

Percent product-oriented firms in that industry

AgricultureForest/

Fisheries Mining Construction

Utilities Wholesale Trades

Retail Trades

Yes 43 19 34 21 18 52 55 No 42 56 55 65 71 41 34 Don't Know 6 6 8 6 0 4 6 No Answer 8 19 3 8 11 3 5

TABLES 45A & B

Q. IIA—17a Are the measurement units or standards for these foreign imports (See Q. 17, tables 44 A & B) different from the ones used in your U.S. sales?

Units or standards used on about 27 percent of the imports to the U.S. were said to be either the same or "sometimes" the same as those employed

in goods produced in this country. Nearly two-thirds of these goods bear

dimensions in accord with the measurement system in effect in the country of

origin. This adherence by foreign producers to the use of SI measurement

units has led, of course, to the problems with servicing of imported goods

mentioned in Q. IIA—19, Tables 34 A & B. For products imported into the U.S. the measurement standards were said

to be adapted to the American system in these proportions:

Number of employees

Congruence between

U.S. units and measurements used

in imported goods1 1-19 20-249 250+ Total (N=184) (N=196) (N = 241) (N=621)

Percent Percent Percent Percent Units or Standards are: Not congruent 53 56 66 59 Congruent 22 20 17 20 Sometimes congruent 4 9 9 7

1 Only for those firms that had indicated in Q. IIA—17 that the products they sold were also brought into this country by foreign producers.

It will be noted in the table above that the items handled by the major

employer firms, the goods with the largest sales volume, were less often adapted by foreign producers to American measurement than were the goods

handled by smaller organizations. In the most significant products, either in terms of large numbers of units produced (particularly mass produced) or
92 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

in terms of high cost per unit, foreign producers were using only the meas- urement system of the majority of countries. Foreign manufactured automobiles, for example, are produced to metric engineering standards, and the U.S. consumer, as only one of many market areas, is expected to adapt to these measurements. The mechanical parts of foreign cars are rarely, if ever, sized to U.S. measurement standards. The degree of congruence between the measurement units used in U.S. and

in foreign goods varied by the type of merchandise brought into the country.

Those goods marketed in units sized by nature (agricultural produce) were most frequently bundled in U.S. dimensioned packages. The Utilities and Construction industries least often said they found imports in their fields adapted

to U.S. standards.

Congruence between

U.S. units and measure- ments used in imported goods

Industry 1

Agriculture (N = 40)

Mining

(N=36)

Construction (N = 65)

Utilities (N=ll)

Wholesale Trade (N=227)Retail Trade (N = 227)

Service (N=12)

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Standards are: Congruent 25 8 23 9 18 22 17 Sometimes congruent 10 14 0 0 9 1 0 Not congruent 30 58 69 82 61 60 58 Don't Know/No

Answer 37 25 9 9 14 12 25

1 Only those firms which had indicated in Q. IIA—17 that the products they sold were also brought into the U.S. by foreign producers.

In summary, for all industry areas except the Agricultural group, a decided majority of imported goods, when sold in this country, use measure- ment units or standards of the country of origin. Foreign producers do not appear to need to adapt to the U.S. system in order to provide significant

competition in the American market place.

QUESTIONNAIRE III. CURRENT USE OF MEASUREMENT

SYSTEMS IN COMPANY INPUTS

In Section III of the questionnaire, company use of measurement systems

in their own "in-house" operations was investigated. It was assumed that degree of metric usage in such activities would be a fairly direct reflection of both suppliers' activities with regard to the companies in the sample and

actual preference by the company managements for metric equipment and

supplies.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 93

TABLES 46-58A & B

Qs. Ill—1 Does your organization make any significant use of equipment, supplies, components or tools which are described in metric units?

Ill—la Can you list for me those articles which are described in metric units?

Ill—lb About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTICLE) are described in metric units?

Ill—lc Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment) (tools)

you mentioned described in metric units only, or is there dual dimensioning?

Ill—Id Which of them have dual dimensioning?

Detailed answers given to Q. Ill— 1 and its parts required multiple tables for proper analysis of the information. Tables 46 through 58, A & B were all devoted to presentation of the data for this question. In answering Q. 1, 401

respondents (16% of the total sample) indicated some current usage of equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units. Of these, the heaviest users were firms with 250 or more employees.

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Use metric items 102 12 121 14 178 21 401 16

The users of metric items were probed further to determine the nature of

the items they had mentioned.

Summary of Tables 47A, 51 A, and 55A

Kind of metric item mentioned

Those using any metric item

Number Percent

Equipment or tools Supplies

Components

12

9

1 Multiple answers permitted.
94 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

In order to determine whether degree of involvement with foreign commerce had any effect on use in U.S. operations of equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units, two special subpopulations were compared with the total sample population: (1) All firms which export to for- eign countries, and (2) All firms having licensee or subsidiary operations in foreign countries.

Firms Making Significant Use of Equipment, Supplies,

Components Described in Metric Units

Percent total Percent Percent firms having

population exporters licensees/subsidiaries (N = 2563) (N = 298) (N = 291)

Uses 16 27 28 Does not use 83 72 71 Don't Know/No Answer 1 0.3 1

It appears that when some portion of a firm's business was devoted to for- eign commerce, the organization was more likely to use articles described in metric units in its U.S. operations. More than Va of both the exporters and

the firms having foreign licensees and subsidiaries made significant use of

such goods or equipment as compared with barely 16 percent of the total sample population.

The list of articles mentioned by the 401 respondents was then analyzed

for each company to determine whether the equipment, supplies, or components, (a) were always described in metric units; or (b) were ever dual

dimensioned.

If for example, a respondent said his firm used syringes, drugs, and tape

that were described in metric units, he was asked:

"About what percent of all your syringes are described in metric units?"

"About what percent of all your drugs are described in metric units?" Etc. "Are these syringes you mentioned described in metric units only, or is there dual dimensioning?"

Etc.

In other words, each firm was asked to estimate what percent of the items

mentioned was described in metric units and what percent had dual dimensioning. If 3 items were listed, one of which was always described (100% of

the time) in metric units, the code for that company would be 33 percent
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 95

metric (i.e., only one third of the 3 metric articles was always metric). If none of the articles was always described in metric units, the code would be

0 percent metric (i.e., none of the articles was always described in metric

units). The same rationale applied to the dual dimensioning category. It should be noted that the figures were based on each firm's responses and

could include one or more items. The metric only and dual dimension categories were not mutually exclusive because an article can be consistently

described in metric units but still be described in the U.S. system as well.

Firms using metric dimensioned items 1

Article No items always described in All items always described in metric units (0 percent) metric units (100 percent)

Number Percent Number Percent

Equipment or Tools 137 38 172 48

Supplies 17 34 27 54 Components 14 40 15 43

Article

Firms using metric items which were also dual dimensioned 1

No metric items described in both measurement units

All metric items described in both measurement units

Number Percent Number Percent

Equipment or tools 226 63 79 22

Supplies 29 59 16 32 Components 19 54 13 37

1 Percentages between 0-100 percent are not listed due to insignificant impact. See appendix for complete tables.

Over twice as many articles were labeled in metric units only as were

described in both systems (67% versus 32%). This may imply that when a

firm used equipment, supplies, or components labeled in metric units it accommodated to SI rather than converting from metric to U.S. This finding

could also mean that the articles used were not ones in which the measure- ment description was critical. The proportions of members within each industry group citing some usage

of equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units were (p. 96):
96 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Industry

Forestry/Fisheries

Services

Utilities Communication. .

Wholesale Trade.

Mining

Real Estate Agriculture

Retail Trade

Construction

Transportation ... Finance

Insurance

Percent

32

2322

20

19

18

161312

1194

3

The responses of those members of each industry group who had indicated

significant use of any "metric-described" items were classified to determine

the relative proportions who were using metric-described ( 1 ) equipment,

(2) supplies, and (3) components:

Type of Item Used, Shown as Percent of Metric Users

Within Each Industry

Industry Number Equipment

or tools

Supplies Components

Percent Percent Percent

Forestry/Fisheries 13 83 0 17

Utilities 14 100 7 7 Communication 5 100 0 20

Agriculture 13 100 8 0 Finance 5 100 0 0

Insurance 2 100 0 0

Transportation 24 92 12 4

Retail Trade 51 88 10 10 Construction 34 94 6 3 Wholesale Trade 80 87 10 15 Services 142 87 19 8 Mining 19 89 5 0 Real Estate 5 80 40 20

More than 91 percent of all firms which used any item that was described

in metric units, used an item that was classified as equipment. In 5 industry groups, every firm which mentioned any use of metric items specified a piece

of equipment. Overall frequency of use of metric items was higher in some

industries—Services, for example. Relatively few metric components were

mentioned in comparison to equipment or supplies.

The preceding text table showed that metric described equipment and tools were much more frequently used by U.S. firms than either supplies or com-
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 97

ponents. The breakdown given below is, therefore, confined to the equipment/tools reply category only. In this text table, if a responding firm

said it used certain metric described items, it was then asked if all such items

in its operations were metric described. If it replied affirmatively, its usage was listed as 100 percent. If only half of the same kinds of articles were

metric dimensioned, then the percentage shown is 50 percent. These answers

indicate the degree of intrusion of certain metric dimensioned items into U.S. nonmanufacturing operations. If a company once starts using an item from a

certain supplier and obtains a stock of tools or equipment that satisfy certain

operational requirements, it is highly likely the organization will continue to use such items if performance is satisfactory. Forty-eight percent of metric

equipment users said, as a matter of fact, that all the units they had of any

particular type of equipment were described by metric units. (See Table

49A.)

Figures in the table below show the beginnings of such incursion, mostly

by foreign suppliers. Adaptation by the U.S. consumer to the SI dimensions

usually seems to take the form of relabeling the item in U.S. units, or ignoring the problem if output unit size is not critical. In summary, about 16 percent of all the respondent organizations used at least some metric described equipment, supplies, or components in their own

company operations. Two-thirds of those metric items were employed with- out shift to the U.S. equivalent dimensions. All 13 industries had at least a few metric item users, mostly of equipment.

Users of Metric Equipment or Tools 1

Percent metric items Percent metric items always described described in both U.S.

Industry' group Number in metric units and metric units

0 Percent 2 100 Percent 3 0 Percent 2 100 Percent 3

Agriculture 13 33 50 58 25

Forest/Fisheries 6 20 40 40 60 Mining 17 59 29 65 18 Construction 32 59 25 50 37 Transportation 23 50 45 48 27 Communication 5 60 20 80 0

Utilities 14 21 64 64 36 Wholesale Trade 72 37 51 60 20

Retail Trade 48 27 62 67 22 Finance 5 100 0 80 0

Insurance 2 0 100 100 0 Real Estate 4 0 75 75 25

Services 126 34 50 69 17

1 Percentages between 0 percent and 100 percent are omitted. See appendix, Tables 49B and 50B

for complete tables. Some duplication occurs between the 2 categories of use listed here.

- No metric described articles used. •All metric items used are metric described.
9H NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

TABLES 59-71 A & B

Qs. Ill—2 Now I'd like to ask about engineering standards. Does

your organization make any significant use of equipment, supplies, components or tools which are designed

to metric engineering standards?

Ill—2a Which articles are designed to metric engineering

standards?

Ill—2b About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTICLE) are designed to metric standards?

Ill—2c Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment)

(tools) which you mentioned designed to strictly

metric standards, or is there dual dimensioning?

Ill—2d Which of them have dual dimensioning?

About 91 percent of the total sample of respondents said that they did not make any significant use of equipment, supplies, or components designed to metric engineering standards. (There is a possibility that this percentage may

be spuriously high due to the fact that 90 percent of the company spokesmen

in the sample were managerial rather than technical personnel, and they may

not, in fact, have been aware of equipment, tools, etc. originally designed to metric engineering specifications.)

A little less than 7 percent (N=173) of the respondents answered that

their organizations did use items manufactured to SI engineering standards.

The detailed analysis was necessarily based on these respondents only. In consequence, results shown in some of the tables below are based on rather small numbers of respondents and should be viewed with caution.

Slightly more large firms than medium or small said they used metric designed equipment, etc:

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250 + Total

NumberPer- cent NumberPer- cent NumberPercent Number

Per- cent

Firms making significant use of equipment, etc., designed to metric engineering standards 39 5 54 6 80 9 173 7

The proportions of responses to this question from two special subpopulations were compared with those of the total sample population. The premise

of the comparison was that involvement in foreign commerce might be re- lated to a firm's use, in its U.S. operations, of equipment, supplies, or components designed to metric standards.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 99

Firms making significant use of equipment, supplies, or components designed to metric standards

Percent total population

(N=2563)

Percent exporting

firms (N=298)

Percent firms having licensees/ subsidiaries (N=291)

Use 7 14 16 Not use 91 83 80 Don't Know/No Answer. . .

2 3 4

The percentages of firms that said they used articles designed to metric

standards in each of the two subpopulations were at least twice as large as the percentage of firms of the total sample population. Just as for use of arti- cles described in metric units, it might be inferred that firms having dealings

with foreign countries are more likely, because of that commerce, to make

more use of metric standard equipment, supplies, or components. This infer- ence is further supported by the finding that large firms made more use of

metric standard items, since approximately 35 percent of the firms with 250

or more employees were either exporters or had foreign licensees/subsidiaries.

Of the 173 users of metric designed, items, by far the majority had in- vested in equipment or tools:

Summary of Tables 60A, 64A, and 68A

Metric item used: 1

Number of employees

1-19 (N=39)

20-249 (N=54)

250 +

(N=80)

Total (N=173)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Equipment/tools 82 76 87 83 Supplies 10 15 4 9 Components 8 9 10 9

1 Respondents could be counted once in each category.

These relative proportions correspond well to those obtained in the an- swers to Q. Ill—1, immediately preceding.

The next inquiries were addressed to determining how many kinds of articles were used by the responding company, and what percent of each type were

designed to metric engineering standards. About half of the metric-designed

equipment users said they used only one kind of metric standard equipment.
100 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Large firms mentioned more kinds of metric standard equipment than smaller

firms did. (See Table 61 A.)

When respondents thought about the percentages of their operating equipment, tools, supplies, or components that were metric designed, a majority of

this subpopulation said all ( 100% ) of those kinds of equipment or tools and

all of those kinds of supplies were designed to metric standards:

Summary of Tables 62A, 66A, and 70A

Percent of those items that are always (100 percent) designed to Metric designed item metric engineering standards

Number Percent

Equipment/Tools 74 52 Supplies 10 67 Components 5 31

Apparently, fewer firms consistently used metric-designed components than

all other types of material.

Respondents were also asked (for each item mentioned), whether the item was designed to metric standards only or whether U.S. standards were also used. These answers indicated that few of their metric-designed items were

dual-dimensioned

Summary of Tables 63A, 67A, and 71

Percent of those items that are dual dimensioned

Metric designed item

Number Percent

Equipment/Tools 29 20

Supplies 4 27 Components 5 31

Articles designed to metric engineering standards were not widely used by

any one industry group. Those industries showing greatest usage of such

items were (p. 101 ):
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 101

Users of items with metric engineering standards

1 ndustry

Number Percent within industry

Services 61 10 Wholesale Trade 33 8 Retail Trade 18 4 Transportation 16 6 Construction 14 5 Mining 11 10 Forestry/Fisheries 3 16

The largest groups of users of metric standard equipment/tools were in the same industries:

Users of equipment tools with

metric engineering standards

Industry

Number Percent within industry

54 9 Wholesale Trade 27 6 Construction 12 5 Transportation 13 5 Retail Trade 11 3 Mining 10 9 Forestry/Fisheries 2 10

Tabulations by industry for supplies and components were inadequate for further analysis. In summary, the great majority (91%) of respondents did not make any

significant use of equipment, supplies, or components which were designed to metric standards. Of the 7 percent who did use metric-designed items, the great majority

(84% ) had invested in equipment/tools. If they used a metric-designed item,

all items of that type tended to be designed to metric engineering standards. Less than half of their metric-designed items were also designed to U.S. engineering standards.

The Services industry had the largest number of users of metric-designed

goods.
102 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

TABLES 72-73A & B

Q. Ill—3 Were the metric articles you mentioned manufactured in the U.S. or in a foreign country?

Q. Ill—3a Could you please estimate what percent were manufactured in a foreign country?

Respondents who indicated current usage of the metric system in inputs to company operations (N = 445, 17%) were asked where the articles they

mentioned had been manufactured.

Place where metric articles manufactured: Number Percent

U.S 123 28 Foreign Country 111 25 Both U.S. & Foreign 69 15 No Answer, Don't Know 140 31

Total 445 100

They reported considerable use of metric articles produced in the U.S. but

only slightly more than of articles imported from foreign countries. Large

companies contributed the greatest support to the foreign market; small and

moderate-sized firms primarily supported U.S. production; and all groups

supported a combination of U.S. and foreign manufacturers in about equal

proportions.

Purchase of Metric Items by Source of Manufacture

Number of employees

Source 1- 19 20-249 250+

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

U.S 35 31 41 30 47 24

Foreign country 23 20 26 19 62 31 Both U.S. & Foreign 16 14 22 16 31 16 No Answer, Don't Know 38 33 46 34 56 31
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 103

The 15 percent (N=69) who answered "Both U.S. and Foreign" were

questioned further to determine what percent of these articles had been manufactured in a foreign country.

Percentage 1 of those "both U.S. and foreign"

company-used metric articles which came from abroad

Percent firms having that percentage of metric articles manufactured abroad

Number Percent

1-5 9

8

1110

15

12

1312

16

1422

17

6-10

11-25 26-50

51-99 Cannot determine percent

1 No Answer, 0 percent and 100 percent (N = 3) categories omitted as being in error. See Appendix Table 72A

for complete figures.

The majority of buyers (55% ) said that less than 50 percent of their pur- chases were imported, thus indicating a partial but not critical dependence on

foreign manufacturers. Seventeen percent of the firms were not able to stipulate the impact of foreign production on the metric articles they used, but

indicated that some foreign influence was present.

To put these figures into perspective: If the categories "Foreign Country"

and "Both U.S. & Foreign" are combined, 131 firms (about 5% of the total sample) purchased metric goods which were of foreign origin. For about half of these 131 firms all metric goods purchased were manufactured in foreign

countries. About 6 percent (of the total sample) or 162 firms bought only

U.S. produced metric goods and 143 or 5 percent didn't know where their metric articles had originated. Overall, the use of metric articles manufactured in the U.S. was of significant magnitude. Unfortunately there was no way to discern from the present data whether this was a static or an increasing figure.

In nearly all industries some of the firms which used metric

designed/described goods "in house", bought foreign produced goods. The

following text table shows that users of U.S. produced metric items were

largely concentrated in the Agriculture, Retail Trade, Mining, Services, and

Wholesale Trade industries. (Industry groups having fewer than 10 firms

which were using metric-designed/described items are disregarded in this dis- cussion, although they are included in the table.) Construction, Transportation, Utilities, and Wholesale Trade had high percentages of users of foreign

produced goods.
104 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Of Those Firms Using Metric Designed/Described Items,

Place Where Metric Good was Manufactured

Industry

U.S. produced Foreign produced Both U.S. and

foreign

Number Percent IndustryNumber Percent

Industry

Number Percent

Industry

Insurance 11 50 0 0

Agriculture 6 40 0 2 13 Real Estate 1 2 40 0 2 40

Retail Trade 19 34 13 23 5 9 Mining 7 33 4 19 2 9 Communication 1 2 33 2 33 0

Services 45 28 30 19 33 21 Wholesale Trade 22 25 24 28 18 21 Finance 1 2 25 1 12 1 12

Utilities 3 21 5 36 0

Transportation 6 21 11 39 2 7 Construction 7 19 18 49 3 8 Forestry/Fisheries 1 1 14 2 29 1 14

1 Total number of users of metric-designed/described items in these industries is less than 10.

Only Services and Wholesale Trade had appreciable percentages of metric

users who purchased "Both U.S. and Foreign" produced goods. The breakdown of sources in the "Both U.S. and Foreign" data were too scattered and

the numbers too small to permit meaningful analysis. (See table 73B).

In summary, slightly more metric-designed/described articles used in company operations were U.S. produced. The chief users of these U.S. produced

metric goods were in Agriculture, Retail Trade, Mining, Services, and Wholesale Trade. The Construction industry was the only industry in which the majority of users of such metric goods purchased items of foreign manufacture. In two industries, Services and Wholesale Trade, there were approximately equal numbers of firms using each of the three sources of metric

items. In terms of the total sample population, about 6 percent of the respondent

companies bought U.S. and 5 percent purchased foreign metric goods for "in-house" use.

TABLES 74—75A & B

(If Respondent stated either that he used goods described

in metric units or designed to metric standards)
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 105

Q. Ill—4 Has your company found any particular advantages in using metric goods or equipment?

Q. Ill—5 How about any disadvantages or problems associated with

such metric goods or equipment?

The group of firms (N = 445, 17% of the total sample) which stated that they used within their own company operations equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units or designed to metric standards, comprised

a group that should have had special knowledge about advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of these items in the U.S. About 41 percent of the firms which use metric-designed/described goods

listed one or more advantages associated with that use while only 24 percent

of those 445 firms listed one or more disadvantages. (See "none" categories

in tables 74 and 75A. ) About 64 percent of the 301 answers to Qs. 4 and 5 (multiple answers were permitted) concerned something advantageous with

regard to the metric items used; while only 36 percent of the replies could be

classified as disadvantages associated with the use of SI designed/described

items. The advantages and disadvantages mentioned fell into several major cate- gories :

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total (N=112) (N=136) (N = 197) (N = 445)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

1 . Advantages

Easier to use 11 14 16 14 "More accurate" 12 7 13 11 Standardized 5 8 6 6 Miscellaneous 13 12 14 13 None (don't know of any) 62 62 55 59

2. Disadvantages

Difficult to convert 8 7 10 8 Service/Repair Parts Difficulty 5 5 9 7 Education/unfamiliarity 2 7 7 5 Dual system 2 1 4 3 Miscellaneous 0 0 0.5 0.2 None (don't know of any) 81 78 71 76

Large firms tended to cite slightly more advantages and disadvantages than

smaller firms.

It will be noted from the table above that the advantages cited for using

metric equipment/tools, components, or supplies were all factors which re- ferred to characteristics of the metric system itself. Conversely, the disadvan441-628 0-71—
106 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

tages listed centered around the fact that the metric system was not widely

known or used in the U.S. None of the disadvantages referred to a disadvantage of the measurement system as such. Disregarding those industries with fewer than 10 users of metric

described/designed items; Agriculture, Services, Wholesale and Retail Trades

most frequently mentioned the 3 specific advantages shown in the text table preceding. Frequencies in each industry group for the disadvantage answer

categories were too scattered to draw much information, however; Agriculture, Construction, Wholesale Trade, and Services had higher percentages of

their members mentioning "difficult to convert."

In summary, of 445 users of metric-designed/described materials, almost

twice as many mentioned advantages as disadvantages in using these articles. All the advantages listed were associated with the characteristics of the metric

measurement system itself; all disadvantages dealt with the use of metric

items in the present U.S. setting.

TABLES 76—77 A & B

Q. Ill—6 Which of the following phrases best describes how important measurements and measurement calculations are

to your overall company operations?

Q. Ill—7 If you think of the total man-hours in your organization

that are devoted to making measurements or measure- ment calculations, about what percent of this total would

you estimate is spent using the metric measurement

system?

Measurements were considered to be a "very important" part of company

operations by nearly half the total sample of nonmanufacturing organizations

but a greater proportion of the largest companies said so than either medium

or small

Level of importance of measurement

in company operations

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250

or more

Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Very important 38 47 51 45 Moderately important 20 18 15 18 Relatively unimportant 21 18 20 20 Not at all important 21 16 13 16

About 20 percent of the responding firms spent at least a little time using

metric measurements and, again, the group of largest companies used SI more often than the smaller sized respondents:
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 107

Percent usage of SI measurements Number of employees

1-19 (N = 850)

20-249 (N = 863)

250 +

(N = 849)

Total (N = 2562)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

1-5 6.2 7.8 13.9 9.3 6-10 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.5 11-100 1 4.9 4.9 6.0 5.3

1 See Table 77A for detailed breakdown. Measurement was said to be "very important" in company activities by the percentages of respondents in each industry as presented below. The accompanying column shows the proportions of members in each of these groups

which devoted at least 1 percent of their organizational man hours to usage

of metric measurement. It will be noted that correspondence between the two

columns of data is not high.

Percent of industry

Industry Measurement Using metric 1 +

very important percent of man-hours

Construction 75 12 Real Estate 66 13

Utilities 61 20

Forest/Fisheries 58 26 Mining 53 21 Wholesale Trades 52 24 Transportation 52 16 Communication 44 32 Agriculture 41 20

Retail Trades 38 16 Services 35 25 Finance 11 7 Insurance 8 7

In summary, both the use of measurement and the employment of the metric system were somewhat more important to large companies than to small. Measurement was most important in the company activities of the Construction and Real Estate industries but both of these groups had relatively few

metric users. Every industry, however, had at least a few users of the SI. Physical dimensions were least important to those groups dealing primarily

in money and investments. Metric measurement was most prevalent in industries in which measurement was chiefly said to be less than "very important"

(Communication, Services).
108 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

SUMMARY: Sections II and III

Sections II and III of the questionnaire were devoted to current use of the metric system in company outputs and inputs respectively. "Output" questions were concerned with the measurement system used when quoting prices or when describing products for sale. "Input" questions asked about usage of

metric-described or metric-designed equipment, supplies, or components

within the company's own operations.

The data show that more than twice as many firms used the metric system

for some parts of their own "in house" operations as used it for sales-related

activities. Only 8 percent of the population of interest said they ever used

metric units or standards when quoting prices or when labeling goods for

sale. This is compared with 16 percent of the sample who said they made

significant use "in house" of metric described equipment, supplies, or components; and 7 percent who made significant use of such articles that were de- signed to metric standards. (A total of 17% of the sample used metric-described and/or metric-designed items. ) When asked to think in terms of percentage of man-hours devoted to metric measurements or measurement

calculations in their company operations, 20 percent of the sample said they

used the metric system at least a little in these activities. The same industry groups appeared to be the largest users of the metric

system in company inputs and outputs although the percentages of users varied in the same ways as those for the total population. The Transportation

and Communications industries were anomalies to this general rule: Communications showed high percentages of metric users in "in house" activities, but no firms which used metric units to quote prices. Transportation, which was one of the industries which had noticeable use of the metric system for

sales-related activities, did not report high use of metric units or standards

for company inputs.

Industry Groups Having Largest Percentages of Firms Using

Metric Units and or Standards in

(1) Company inputs

20 Percent or more of

industry made significant use of metric-described items

10 Percent or more of

industry made significant use of metric-designed

items

20 Percent or more of

industry used "some" metric

for measurements or measurement calculations

Forestry/Fisheries Forestry /Fisheries Communication

Services Mining Forestry/Fisheries

Utilities Services Services Communication Wholesale Trade

Mining

Utilities Agriculture
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 109

(2) Company outputs

5 Percent or more of 5 Percent or more of 5 Percent or more of

industry used metric units industry used metric units industry used metric or metric + U.S. units to quote price or describe standards in sales- to describe packages products during sales related activities

Mining Transportation Utilities Wholesale Trade Mining

Retail Trade

Mining

Forestry/Fisheries

QUESTIONNAIRE IV. FUTURE USE OF METRIC

MEASUREMENT

Section IV of the questionnaire dealt with the company's own plans for use

of the metric system in the future and with its attitudes toward increasing use

of SI on a national basis. Many of the questions in this section were devoted

to attitudes toward, and probable effects of, a hypothetical planned national

program of metrication with specific characteristics. This "planned national

program" was defined with specific assumptions so that each company could

react to the same basic program and answers would be comparable.

CHARACTERISTICS

1 . All major countries except the U.S. are now metric.

2. There would be a nationally planned program in the U.S. to increase

the use of the metric measurement system in this country.

3. The changeover to the metric system would be completed by the end

of a designated time period.

4. Within the designated time period, all changes to metric language for printed materials such as signs, catalogues, deeds, and labels would

be made only when such materials needed to be revised; and all changes to metric sizes or engineering standards would be made

only for new or redesigned parts or products.

5. Existing equipment would be used until the end of its normal life cycle; the only changes to metric units would be in dials, gages, and indicating devices.

6. You could establish your own schedule for conversion to metric lan- guage or standards, as long as these changes were accomplished

within the designated time period.

7. All goods and services normally used by your organization would be

available in metric terms as needed and at no extra cost to you.
110 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

8. The metric system would be taught in all U.S. schools during the transition period and the general public would be gaining familiarity

with the metric measurement system at the same time.

We've adopted those characteristics to find out how a nationally planned

program might affect you. Let me emphasize that no program of this type actually exists. It's purely hypothetical.

TABLES 78A & B

Q. IV—1 Do you think that your organization will ever use or

increase its use of metric measurements on its own?

On the average, about 6 percent of all respondents said they expected their organizations to increase their use of metric measurement of their own volition, but the great majority of companies in all size categories indicated no

such intent. About 10 percent said they would be glad to see the whole U.S. change but their organizations would not change unless the whole economy

did. A few more large organizations had some intention of increasing metric

usage voluntarily than small ones did (7% compared with 5%).

ESTIMATED FUTURE USE OF THE METRIC

SYSTEM ASSUMING NO GOVERNMENT ACTION: "ON

THEIR OWN" (BY SIZE CLASS)

Will Increase -

u Will Not

do Increase

<o Z>

T3

® Not Unless

* Whole U.S. Does

No Answer

Don't Know

i

1-19 20-245 >249

Total 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Firms

Mi l"!' IMMWWMIWWMMBBMM

The industries most and least frequently saying they probably would adopt

greater use of metric measurement on their own were:
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 111

Most often Percent Least often Percent

Forestry/Fisheries Wholesale10.5

9

8

77

Finance

Construction

12 Communication

Services Mining

The responses given by the subpopulations of (1) exporters, (2) firms having foreign licensees and subsidiaries, and (3) firms currently making signifi- cant use of equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units or designed to metric standards, can be compared with the total sample population percentages

Firms which will use or increase use of

metric measurements on their own

Percent firms Percent firms using metric Percent total Percent ex- having equipment,

population porting firms licensees/ supplies,

(N = 2563) (N = 298) subsidiaries component

(N=291) (N = 445)

Will increase use 6 12 13 17 Will not increase use 83 76 77 70 Not unless whole U.S. does 10 9 8 11 Don't Know/No Answer.

1 2 1 1

Within all 3 of the subpopulation groups shown in the above table, the percentages of firms which said that they intended to increase their use of

metric measurements voluntarily were at least twice as large as the percentage found in the total sample. In the sample population, 149 firms (6%)

stated that they would use or increase their use of metric measurements on

their own in the foreseeable future. Of these 149 firms, 76 or 51 percent were firms that were already making significant use of equipment, supplies, or components described in metric units or designed to metric standards. In the same vein; there were 445 firms which stated that they were currently making significant use of metric-designed or metric-described goods or equipment. Of these 445 firms, 76 or 17 percent said that they intended to increase their use of metric measurements in the future. The percentage of

firms in this special subpopulation was nearly 3 times as great as that with

similar intentions in the total sample.

In summary, experience with using metric-designed goods was favorable

enough to have inclined a significant proportion of respondents towards in-
112 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

creased employment of such items. When this group is added to those who

are apparently waiting for "the whole U.S/' to change, it appears that about

one-sixth of the population has an above-average interest in national adoption of SI.

TABLES 79A, B & C

Q. IV—la Why is that? (Probe for: why company would or would

not ever increase use of metric measurement on its own?)

When probed as to why they would increase their use of metric measure- ments voluntarily, 34 percent of the 149 spokesmen in this subgroup said in- creased use of metric measurement would improve the quality of their output

or of their performance. About the same percentage of respondents (30%)

stated they thought the SI could ease international commerce and a few

( 13% ) mentioned it would help them meet foreign competition.

The chief reason given for having no intention to make greater use of metric measurements voluntarily was that companies thought there was no need

to do so (61%), besides which their customers didn't demand it (16%).

Fewer small firms (5%) were concerned about the cost of changeover than

large organizations were ( 10% )

Some greater willingness to convert to the metric system may have been

implied by those (8%) who said they could not change alone. This group was chiefly comprised of members of the Construction, Transportation, Mining, and Real Estate industries. By industry the strongest and weakest levels of advocacy of the various reasons given above were

Reason Most mentions Percent 1 Least mentions Percent 1

Would ease international Forestry/ Fisheries 10 Communication 0 commerce. Wholesale Trade 3 Insurance 0

Real Estate 0 Meet foreign competition Forestry/ Fisheries 5 Mining 0 Transportation 2 Communication 0

Utilities 0 Finance/Insur- 0 ance/Real

Estate Improve quality/per- Communication 8 Agriculture 0

formance. Real Estate 6 Forestry/Fisheries 0

Utilities 5 Finance 0

Insurance 0 No need to increase Insurance 76 Wholesale 51 Finance 73 Real Estate 53 Communication 64 No customer demand Wholesale 20 Real Estate 6 Mining 18 Forestry/Fisheries 10

Retail Trade 17 Utilities 11

1 Percentages of total sample populations within each industry regardless of answer to Q. IV—I.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 113

In conclusion, about 41 percent of the reasons given for no self-initiated action to increase metric usage had to do with relationships with others—in- dustry standards, government requirements, no customer demand, suppliers

determine it, etc. On the other hand, less than 9 percent of the answers to

this question were concerned with the organization's own determinations

too difficult to change and do not wish to change our equipment. The over- whelming reason for no self-initiated activity—"no need to change"—was

probably a statement of neutrality, an interpretation which is largely substantiated by answers to Qs. IV—1, 1-7, & IIA & B-6. In terms of the total sample population (regardless of whether the respondent said his company

would or would not increase metric usage on its own) a majority of all re- spondents (58% ) and a majority of respondents in every industry group said

that there was "no need" to increase metric usage, meaning that as long as the country used the U.S. system, they were better off not trying to "go metric" by themselves.

TABLES 80-82 A & B

Q. IV—2 (If "YES" to Q. IV—1

) When do you think you might

begin to make changes in your present measurement

system on your own?

Q. IV—3 What do you suppose will be some of the advantages of increasing metric usage?

Q. IV—4 How about disadvantages (of increasing your use of metric measurement?)

About 6 percent (N=149) of the total sample had plans to increase their use of metric measurement of their own volition (Table 78, Q. IV—1 ) and

of these, the largest companies more often than smaller ones had such intentions. The most favored time periods for beginning this increased usage were

in 1 year and between 4 and 5 years. More respondents said "Don't Know"

(35%) or gave "No Answer" (40%) than specified a number of years. No

respondent specified over 10 years. The breakdown by industry group of the responses from the 149 firms

showed too much scatter to make distinctions. In all industries, the majorities

could not specify a number of years, perhaps implying one of two things: either these firms had been already gradually increasing their use of the metric

measurement system and, therefore, did not foresee the occurrence of a marked increase; or else, only slight consideration had been given to this question and no actual changeover policies had been set. When the 149 respondents who predicted voluntary metrication were

asked for advantages and disadvantages of such action, there were appreciable differences between the opinions of large and small companies. The

advantages most frequently offered were (p. 114)

1

1 See Table 81A for complete details.
114 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Metric system is or will be

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 — ny) 250+

(N= 58)

Total I'M—

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Easier to use 36 20 21 25 "More accurate" 19 12 10 13 Standardize international trade 12 24 36 25 Save time 0 4 3 3 No advantages 43 37 34 38

The 3 industries which had appreciable numbers of firms predicting voluntary metrication—Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, and Services—had all mentioned these SI advantages most often. Over half (53%) of the 149 respondents who anticipated greater self-ini- tiated use of the metric system said they could see no disadvantages in making such a change. Of the remaining 47 percent intending to increase

their use of metric measurement, a few saw problems arising in the areas shown in the table below.

Small organizations listed "confusion" as an outcome of changeover more

often than large concerns, but middle-sized groups listed fewer possible dis- advantages of increased usage of the metric system.

Percent Disadvantage intending

increase

No problems 68 Inventory 3 Conversion 9 Retraining employees 7 Expense of conversion 6 Confusion 3 Miscellaneous 11

In summary, about 6 percent of the total sample population expected their own companies to increase their use of metric measurements whether the whole U.S. decides to adopt SI or not. The advantages to this policy centered

around ease of using metric units for small firms and interest in standardizing

international trade for large firms. Disadvantages were expected to result from the process of conversion.

TABLES 83A & B

Q. IV—5 Let's suppose that the firms from which you buy supplies,

equipment, tools, or components increased their use of
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 115

metric measures or standards on their own. What effect would that have on your (company) (organization)?

Opinions as to what it would do to company operations if suppliers were

to adopt the SI, were so varied that summarization is difficult. Reactions were just about equally divided between statements favorable and unfavorable to the idea. There was little difference between the groups of organizations with different numbers of employees.

It was conceded by some that if suppliers were to change to metric measurement it would affect the operations of the industries being surveyed, but more than 75 percent of all respondents were in the "Don't Know/No Answer" category. Less than 1 percent added that such action by suppliers

could speed up metric conversion.

Favorable and unfavorable reactions were mostly a restatement of ideas

presented in the analysis of previous questions:

Favorable Percent 1

Statement implying easy adjustment 17 Convert to customer demands 1 Would increase metric usage 2 None—no effect 19

Little effect—general 9

Unfavorable

Statement implying difficult adjustment 11 Conversion problems 4

Increased costs 3 Confusion 7 Inventory problems 3 Dual dimensioning 5 Retraining employees 5 Unrealistic proposal 0.5

1 Multiple answers allowed. The "ease of adjustment" percentages in the above text table are worthy of

specific comparison. They encapsulate the general trend for all answers given

to this question. All but one of the industries in the sample had more spokes- men for "easy adjustment" than for "difficult". Forestry and Fisheries, the one exception, had one spokesman (5.3%) who thought adjustment would

be easy and four (21%) who thought it would be difficult if industry suppliers decided to increase their use of metric measures or standards.

When all favorable and all unfavorable answer percentages are summed in Table 83A, slightly more favorable than unfavorable responses were listed, with the great majority of respondents remaining noncommital.

In summary, suppliers were not thought to be a key group in the metrication picture. If metric-measure goods (equipment, supplies, etc.) were readily

available, slightly fewer difficulties than advantages would result.
116 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

TABLES 84A & B

Q. IV—6 Do you think your company would face any inventory

problems if some industries went metric on their own

while others continued to use the U.S. system?

Since the industries in this sample were not manufacturers, except for a few who had dual roles, their confidence in their suppliers was surprising.

Only about one third of the total sample said they would expect inventory

problems if conversion were haphazard and voluntary. Large organizations

expressed more concern than either medium or small companies:

Effect on inventory if suppliers were

to go metric at different rates

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250 + Total

Percent Percefit Percent Percent

Would expect inventory problems 27 36 46 36 No problems expected 68 60 52 60 Don't Know/No Answer 5 3 2 3

The individual industries that expected the most trouble with inventory were:

industry Percent

Utilities 67 Wholesale Trade 50 Forestry/Fisheries 47

In all other industries, more respondents did not expect inventory problems

than did expect them. A few citations from table 84B will illustrate this point:

Inventory problems

Industry

Expected Not expected

Agriculture 24 71 Mining 42 54 Construction 39 57 Communication 24 72

Retail Trade 36 59

Services 27 70
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 117

Residual percentages to complete 100 percent appeared in the Don't Know/No Answer category.

The conclusion to be drawn from data in this table is that a substantial

majority in all but 3 industries believed that their inventories would not constitute particular problems if change to metric measurement were on a haphazard, voluntary basis by industry. The implication is that there would be

intra-industry agreement as to a suitable time for conversion and as long as

all members worked on it together, inventory problems would be minimal.

England is using voluntary conversion by industry.

TABLES 85A & B

Q. IV—6a What would be the nature and extent of those inventory

problems?

If the U.S. were to adopt the metric system on a voluntary conversion

basis, 36 percent of the organizations surveyed said they would experience

problems with their inventories. These 933 respondents described the chief problems anticipated as follows

Problem Number

Percent

total sample

Percent subsample

foreseeing

problems

Chief industries mentioning

Increased inventory. . . . 257 10 27 Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade Dual measurement 196 8 21 Mining

Wholesale Trade

Confusion 168 7 18 Agriculture Real Estate Expensive 108 4 12 Services Wholesale Trade

The most concerned group were the wholesalers—those middlemen re- sponsible for insuring an adequate flow of goods and services between manufacturer and consumer.

Organizations of all three size categories mentioned inventory problems

about equally frequently. The only exception was for one low frequency item

not listed in the above text table labeled "hard to replace old parts." Large

companies more often expressed this concern than did small ones

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Hard to replace old parts 1 1.7 2.2 4.9 3.2

1 Percent based on 933 respondents who had said they anticipated inventory problems.
118 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Large concerns carry large inventories and would expect to stock parts for outmoded equipments. If manufacturers shifted all production equipment to metric measurement, parts for old models might have to be custom-made.

The industry most concerned with obtaining old parts was Agriculture

(12%).

In summary, the chief inventory problem accompanying metrication by suppliers was the increased numbers of supplies and parts that would have to be

stocked. Middlemen were the most concerned group with regard to inventory

size but Agriculture and Real Estate expected the most confusion with the advent of increased metric usage by suppliers.

TABLES 86-87A & B

Qs. IV—7 and 7a Do you think that the government should take

any action to bring about changes in the use of

metric units or standards in this country?

What sort of action should be taken to bring

about these changes?

The answers to this question were stark enough that the percentages will be reproduced in full. It will be noted that a majority of large and medium

sized organizations favored government action, small businessmen more often did not.

Should government take action in the use of metric units or standards?

Number of employees

1 to 19 20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Government should take action 40 50 59 50 No government action 45 37 29 37 Don't Know/No Answer 15 13 12 13

The industries most and least in favor of government action were as shown

below:

Majority 1 in these industries Percent Majority 1 in these industries Percent

preferred government action preferred no government action

Insurance 66 Construction 45 Mining 56 Agriculture 45 Finance 55 Services 55 Real Estate 53 Communication 52 Forestry/Fisheries 47

Utilities 47

Retail Trade 45

Transportation 44

' Where percents less than 50 are called "a majority," it signifies that opposing opinions constituted a smaller percentage than those shown.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 119

The text table below presents the proportions of responses to this question

within 3 special subgroups: (1) All exporters, (2) All firms with foreign li- censees or subsidiaries, and (3) All firms currently making significant use of

metric-designed/described goods or equipment.

Should government take action to bring about changes in use of metric units or standards?

Percent

total sample

population

(N = 2563)

Percent exporting

firms (N = 298)

Percent

firms having

licen/subsid (N=291)

Percent

firms using

metric equip,

supplies,

components

(N=445)

Should take action 50 59 64 69 Should not take action 37 32 24 22 Don't Know/No Answer.

14 9 12 9

Increasing favorableness toward government action will be noted in the above table as the respondent firms showed more involvement with actual metric usage. The consensus within the entire sample population was in favor of positive

government action to help bring about changes in measurement units and

standards. Of those who thought the government should act, 45 percent

named a "mandatory national program" as the government's best contribution. The differences between large and small organizations were of interest.

Kind of action endorsed by those saying government should act: 1

Number of employees

1-19 (N = 339)

20-249 (N = 430) 250+

(N = 504)

Total (N = 1273)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Mandatory national program 37 43 52 45 Voluntary national program 10 9 8 9 National education program 39 37 39 38 Miscellaneous suggestions 30 32 29 30

1 Multiple answers permitted. Attitudes toward Government action expressed by individual industries should be noted here also. It will be remembered that each respondent was

permitted 2 answers.

Inspection of the data (p. 120) shows that: (1) Transportation was most

often, and the Agricultural industries least often, in favor of a Governmentsponsored, mandatory national program; (2) most industry members seemed

to expect to retrain their own employees but those having extensive contacts
120 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Percent of industry advocating

government action 1

InHi icfrv Wiiiiuaun nrl p tr\r\/y

pi yJgl dill

\J f\ 1 i i n t q r

v (jiui licti y

pi all! Mal> ti ntial dllUIld 1 CUUL-aLLUIl program

A{?nrultiirp 37 T. J jy

AAIt nu AA Mining 38 3 38 Construction 42 10 43 Transportation 52 10 41 Communication 2 38 31 46

Utilities 50 13 20 Wholesale Trade 51 8 37

Retail Trade 34 10 40

Finance 47 10 25 Insurance 51 10 44

Real Estate 2 53 6 29

Services 46 9 40

1 Multiple answers permitted.

2 Percentages based on a number of less than 20 respondents.

with the general public most often wanted help with the reeducation problems. In summary, half of the total sample thought the government should take

action to bring about changes in metric usage in the U.S. Eleven of the 13

industries showed a majority in favor of Government action while 46 per- cent of those favoring a nationally coordinated program thought that "certain

changes should be mandatory." More of the largest companies were in favor

of such a program than were to be found in either group of smaller firms.

TABLES 88A & B

Q. IV—8 Suppose that you were going to help develop a national

plan for adopting the metric system in this country. What

kind of time period do you think would be reasonable for making the changeover?

Before being asked this question, respondents were reminded of the list of 8

characteristics that might guide a possible national metrication program. Every

respondent had received a printed list of these characteristics through the mail and at the time of the interview they were either read to him again or he was asked to glance at them briefly to remind himself of the contents. In the light of the 8 hypothetical guidelines for conversion to metric measurement, about 70 percent of all respondents said their companies would find a conversion period of up to 10 years most satisfactory for their operations.

Differences between size groups of companies were small.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 121

HHHMHHHHi

ESTIMATED REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR

CHANGEOVER BY WHOLE U.S. (Table 88)

No Answer

Don't Know

1 Key S No. of

>ize Class Employees

] 1-19 Never n

Immediately

bJ 20-249

>249

-o 1-2 yrs.

^ 3-5 vrs E

IIWIilMBIMlllilllll —

6-10 yrs.

!

i

11-15 yrs.

16-20 yrs.

More Than

20 yrs. 0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

Exporters, owners of foreign licensees or subsidiaries, and current "metric

users" were compared with the total sample population on this question.

Reasonable time period for planned national conversion

Percent Percent Percent Percent No. of years for total exporting firms with firms using conversion population firms licen/subsid metric equip,

"voting" for "voting" for "voting" for supp, compon.

(N = 2563) (N = 298) (N=291) "voting" for (N = 445)

Never 2 1 0.3 0.4

Immediately 1 1 1 1 1-2 years 8 5 7 7 3-5 years 19 17 20 21 6-10 years 42 49 48 48 11-15 years 5 7 8 5 16-20 years 5 6 7 7 More than 20 years 4 7 4 5 Don't Know/No Answer 12 7 5 6

441-628 0-71—
122 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The percentages of firms within each subgroup preferring each time period

corresponded closely to those for the total sample. There was a tendency for a slightly higher proportion of firms within these groups to suggest the 6-10

year time period.

More spokesmen in Agriculture (25% ) than in any other industry did not

state a definite number of years as optimum for conversion. About 3 percent

each in the Construction, Retail and Mining industries were firmly opposed

to change at any time. In summary, a 6 to 10 year conversion period was preferred over any

other length of time by all groups and all sizes of companies.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 123

ESTIMATED REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR A CHANGEOVER

BY THE WHOLE U.S.—BY INDUSTRY GROUP

io Answer,

jrt't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs,

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

NCo Answer,

n't Know

Never

6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs. 3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

2021 yrs.

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Expressing Response

50 60

Percent Expressing Response

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Expressing Response

No Answer, | Don't Know

Never

16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs.

11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

No Answer, km

Don't Know

" Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

Percent Expressing Response

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

60

COMMUNICATION

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

60
124 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

ESTIMATED REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR A CHANGEOVER

BY THE WHOLE U.S.—BY INDUSTRY GROUP

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

60

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs. 3-5 yrs.

RETAIL TRADE

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

60

INSURANCE

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Expressing Response

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs.

11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

I I I I WHOLESALE TRADE

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Expressing Response

FINANCE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Expressing Response

No Answer,

Don't Know

Never

Immediately

1-2 yrs.

3-5 yrs.

6- TO yrs. 11-15 yrs. 16-20 yrs. more than

20 yrs.

REAL ESTATE

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Respon:
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 125

ESTIMATED REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR A

CHANGEOVER BY THE WHOLE U.S.—BY INDUSTRY

GROUP

SERVICES

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Expressing Response

TABLES 89A, B & C

Q. IV—9 How about a plan for a changeover for your own in- dustry; what time period do you think would be

reasonable?

When it came to estimating a "reasonable" conversion period for their own

industries, most respondents volunteered a shorter time than the one

they considered suitable for the nation as a whole. There were also differ- ences between large and small organization reactions. About 81 percent of the total sample specified one of the 4 time periods shown in the text table below.

Number of employees

Time for own industry to convert

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

37 30 21 29 1-2 years 20 23 18 20 3-5 years 12 17 22 17 6-10 years 10 15 21 15

Total 79 85 82 81

Weighted mean of years 2.35 2.77 3.45 2.86
126 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The industries most and least willing to convert at the above time periods were:

Period

Industry

Most mentions Percent Fewest mentions Percent

Immediately

1 —2 years . . 3 —5 years . . 6—10 years

Finance

Forestry/Fisheries

Communications. . Utilities

46

32

28

31

Utilities . . . Utilities . .

Agriculture

Agriculture

14

9

94

"Immediately" was the time preferred for within-industry changeover to SI by the largest number of spokesmen in 8 of the 13 industrial groups. Listed

below are the time periods chosen by the highest percentage of firms within

each industry:

Industry group Time period chosen by highest per- centage of respondents in that industry

Percent

Finance

Insurance

Agriculture

Services Real Estate Forestry/Fisheries

Retail Trade

Transportation . . .

Communications

Construction Mining

Utilities Wholesale Trade.

Immediately

Immediately

Immediately

Immediately

Immediately

Immediately

1 —2 years. Immediately

Immediately

1—2 Years.

1 —2 years.

3 —5 years . .

1 —2 years.

3 —5 years. . 6—10 years 6—10 years

46

45

41

4(1 34

3232

29

2222

28

28

2527

31

21

A cross tabulation (table 89C) was performed to permit further comparison of time estimates made for national conversion versus those for changeover within the respondents' own industries. Data again show that, except
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 127

for those specifying the shortest period for national metrication, spokesmen

mostly thought their own industries would be able to move more quickly

than the economy at large.

Estimated time for own

industry changeover

(Base = 2563)

Suggested changeover times for nation

Within 5 years (N = 741 or 29%)

6—10 years (N=1089 or 42%)

Over 10 years (N=365 or 14%)

Percent Percent Percent

"Immediately" to 5 years. . .

94 61 44

6—10 years 0.3 31 12 Over 10 years 1 2 37

An example will help in reading the text table above. When respondents

had said they thought a reasonable time period for the whole country to go

metric was from "6 to 10 years" (42% of all persons answering), then 61

percent of those who specified that time period said their own industry

should be able to convert in "up to 5 years," thus implying they would have

fewer problems than the nation overall. One other figure deserves special mention. A small, but consistent group

maintained total resistance to the idea of any metric conversion

Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Nation should never change 2 2.4 0.7 1.7 Own industry should never change 4.1 2.9 1.5 2.8 Answered "Never" to both Qs 1.4

The percentages of firms within each industry which gave a "Never"

response for conversion time for their own industries were fairly even with

the exception of Forestry/Fisheries, Communications, Utilities, and Real

Estate which had no firms giving that response. The text table on page 128 presents the comparison of the total sample

population percentages for changeover time within industry with those for the 3 subgroup populations of interest:
128 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Reasonable time period

for planned changeover within industry

Changeover

time period Percent total population

(N=2563)

Percent export

firms

(N=298)

Percent firms with licensees/ subsidiaries

(N=291)

Percent firms using metric equipment,

supplies,

component

(N = 445)

No Answer 1 0 2 1 Never 3 1 2 1 Immediately 29 16 18 28

1 —2 years 20 16 20 17

3—5 years 17 25 23 23

6—10 years 15 26 20 17

11 —15 years 2 4 4 3 16—20 years 2 4 5 4 More than 20 years 2 4 3 2 Don't Know 8 3 3 4

The table above permits easy comparison of the conversion time prefer- ences by special interest groups with those of all respondents for their own

industries. In all 3 of the presently metric-associated groups, the optimum

changeover time averaged a little longer than was estimated to be "reasonable" by the total population. In summary, although a 6 to 10 year changeover period was considered

most reasonable for the nation as a whole, nearly one-third of the sample

thought their own industries could convert "immediately" and 66 percent

estimated that it could be done in less than 5 years. Three special groups which currently have some contact with metric activities (exporters, users of metric equipment, etc.) estimated slightly longer

changeover periods than the general sample did for conversion within their own industries.

TABLES 90A, B & C

Q. IV—10 Suppose a national plan were developed so that the whole United States would be metric by the end of a (NO. OF YEARS IN Q. 8) year time period. What

would be the biggest advantage to your organization of

this planned (NO. OF YEARS) —year changeover?

Answers to this open-ended question were so scattered that eight reply cat- egories had to be established but reasons suggested by about 33 percent of the total sample were just what might have been predicted. The two largest

groups of answers, however, did not actually pertain to the intent of the question. There was little difference by organization size in the numbers of mentions of the various reasons given, except for "encourages international trade." Four times as many large companies (8%) mentioned this as did
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 129

small ones (2%). These numbers correspond to tables 35A (Export Activities) and 28A (Foreign Licensee or Subsidiary Activities), which show that many more large companies than small engage in foreign commerce. The text table below shows the proportions of answers assigned to the various reasons offered, as a function of the length of time suggested for the changeover period for the whole country.

Changeover period for nation

Those Those Those

Reason for conversion time who said who said who said Total

within 6-10 over

5 years years 10 years

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Suggested

Would allow time to: Convert 7 8 6 7 Re-educate 4 4 4 4 Use supplies 1 2 3 2 Change measuring devices 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3

These nonsequiturs were also suggested:

Easier to use 12 13 11 12 Encourages international trade 4 6 4 5 Miscellaneous 14 13 12 13

More than half of all respondents suggested no advantages that might

accrue to their organizations, should metrication take place during the time

periods they had suggested. More large companies were able to suggest

advantages than medium or small companies. Higher percentages of firms in Finance (72%), Insurance (71%), Retail Trade (69%), and Communication (68%) listed no advantages to conversion within their recommended

time period.

Advantage response category

Industry group having highest percentage of firms within that industry giving response

Percent

None

Allow time to re-educate Allow time to use supplies

Time to change measuring devices Allow time to convert (general) . .

Encourage international trade . . .

Easier to use

Miscellaneous advantages

Don't Know

Finance

Forestry/ Fisheries Agriculture

Forestry/ Fisheries

Utilities Real Estate Wholesale Trade

Services Forestry/ Fisheries Construction Wholesale Trade

Mining

Retail Trade

Utilities

72

10

5

5 19

126

6

16

15

1512

55
130 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

In summary, answers as to why the particular conversion periods they had

named would be advantageous to their companies were quite scattered, with

many more nonsequiturs than directly appropriate replies. Such a pattern of responses usually indicates "off the cuff" opinions rather than well-structured knowledge of probable events.

TABLES 91 A, B & C

Q. IV—1 1 What would be the biggest disadvantages?

General conversion expense and retraining of their own personnel were the most frequently mentioned disadvantages attendant upon national conversion,

but altogether about 55 percent of the population of interest was able to think of some detrimental aspect for their own organizations should the U.S. adopt the metric system. About 37 percent had been able to suggest advantages. Large companies mentioned all categories of disadvantages slightly more frequently than small organizations did, but percentages for nearly all categories were fairly small. The more significant items are listed below

Percent of

total sample

Industry mentioning most often Percent

16 Construction 23

14 Construction 22

9 Wholesale Trade 15

8 Utilities 17

8 Real Estate 16 45 Insurance 64

Disadvantage

Conversion (general) Retraining own people

Expensive Cost of new equipment/tools

Re-educating public

None

1 Multiple answers allowed.

In general, disadvantages were more frequently perceived in connection

with the longer conversion periods

Suggested changeover period for nation

Perceived disadvantage to conversion

in time suggested Those Those Those

who said who said who said within 6-10 yrs. over

5 yrs. 10 yrs.

Percent Percent Percent

Too expensive 7 10 13 Cost of new equipment/tools 5 8 12 Confusing to public 6 8 8 Hard to re-educate public 8 8 10 Retraining 13 13 19 Conversion (general) 16 16 19
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 131

See table 9 1C for full detail. In summary, slightly over half of all respondents mentioned some disadvantage they thought would be associated with conversion to SI. Problems antici- pated lay in three general areas:

Hardware/Inventory 12%

People related 17

General 26

More disadvantages were named by those advocating the longer changeover periods, a phenomenon probably related to size of company, since the

largest organizations averaged a year longer in their preferred changeover

period than the group of smallest firms. (See table 88A.)

TABLES 92-93A, B & C

Qs. IV—12 How about your competition? Would this planned

(NO. OF YEARS)—year metric changeover have

any effect on your competitive position among your

chief U.S. competitors?

IV—12a What effect would it have?

Only a few respondents in all organization size classes could see that there would be any effect on their position among U.S. competitors, if metric

measurement were adopted.

Number Percent

Would have effect 85 3.4 No effect expected 2324 91.8

Don't Know/No Answer 149 5.8

The effects expected by the 3 percent were mostly negative. Their numbers

can be broken down as follows

Effects expected by the 3% with respect to competitive position with U.S. firms Number = 85

Percent*

Follow rest of industry 14 Would hurt smaller competitors 11

11 Costly for firms to change 9 Miscellaneous 51 No Answer/Don't Know 12

1 Multiple answers allowed.
132 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The Wholesale Trade (6%) and Construction industry (5%) anticipated the most change in their positions amongst U.S. competitors should metric

measurement be adopted.

Length of time to convert had little influence on the way spokesmen felt about possible effects on their competitive positions in the U.S., but more of those who thought conversion ought to take "over 10 years" (6% ) expected

their positions to be affected than those who spoke for shorter times for national conversion ( 3 % )

Some small and medium sized employer groups mentioned that the smaller

organizations would be hurt but no large firms mentioned that possibility. In summary, the overwhelming majority of respondents said that changeover within the time period they had suggested would have no effect on

their positions relative to U.S. competition.

Analysis of Qs. 13-16 in Section IV has been omitted because respondents apparently did not discriminate between import of these questions and

items 9 to 1 1 in this section.

TABLES 98-1 00A, B & C

Qs. IV—17, 17a, 17b Q 17 Keeping in mind the eight program

characteristics, do you think that a

national 10-year planned changeover would influence your annual

dollar sales? Q. 17a (IF YES TO Q. 17, ASK Q. 17a

& 17b:) What do you think the per- cent change in your annual U.S.

dollar sales might be?

Q. 17b (IF YES TO Q. 17, ASK Q. 17a &

17b:) How about the percent change

in your annual dollar export sales? When respondents were asked how they felt about the probable health of

their annual dollar sales volume, should a planned 10-year metrication pro- gram be put into effect along the lines of the eight characteristics listed in the

literature sent to them, a majority said:

The 10-year changeover plan: Percent of

total sample 1

Should not affect annual dollar sales 90 Should affect annual dollar sales 6 Don't Know/No Answer 5

1 Adds to 101 percent due to rounding.

More representatives within the Wholesale (10%) and Retail (7%)

Trades expected to have their sales affected than did spokesmen for other

industries.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 133

As shown in the text table (p. 132), 6 percent expected that their annual

sales would be affected. When this subgroup was queried further as to what

they thought the percent change in their annual U.S. sales would be, they

mostly thought the change would be an increase.

Change expected—as percent

Percent of those expecting U.S. sales to be affected (Number = 143, 6% of total population)

By number of employees

of dollar sales in U.S.

Percent of Percent of

1 to 19 20 to 249 250+ sub-pop- total ulation sample

total (N = 2563)

An increase of: 0 5 to 10 nprrent 33 15 12 20 1.2

11 to 25 percent 12 10 18 13 0.8

25 percent or more 19 8 8 11 0.6 Undetermined 0 6 4 4 0.2

Total 64 38 43 48 2.8 A decrease of: 0.5 to 10 percent 2 6 4 4 0.3

1 1 to 25 percent 0 2 0 1 0

25 percent or more 5 4 2 3 0.2 Undetermined 5 8 4 6 0.3

Total

Don't Know

12

21

19

29

10

37

14

29

0.8

3.2

Expectations of either increase or decrease in U.S. annual gross revenue seemed to bear little, if any, relationship to whether the 10-year plan was

longer or shorter than the period originally specified by the respondent, but more small business representatives than those from large corporations

expected to gain by the 10-year conversion plan:

Company gross sales/year

In annual U.S. Under 1-100 100 million to Over

dollar sales 1 million million 1 billion 1 billion

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Expected increase 27 2.7 24 2.5 6 2.8 0 0 Expected decrease 6 0.7 8 0.8 0 0 2 2.8
134 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The third question of the series inquired about possible percentage

increases or decreases in export sales that might attend a 10-year metrication

program. Just under 1 percent (N=19) of all respondents (but 9% of the 291 exporters) said they thought their export trade would be affected by

such a plan and most of these expected increases in their revenues. The numbers represent too small a group for further analysis here. See table 100A for

details. Within the individual industries, Services and the Wholesale Traders were

most frequently optimistic about possibly enhanced foreign trade:

Percent within industry expecting

change in annual dollar export

sales with 10-year metric

Industry changeover:

Increase Decrease

expected expected

Wholesale Trade 4.9 2.7 4.0 0.6 Mining 2.7 0.0

Retail Trade 2.4 0.7

Construction 2.3 0.0

Transportation 2.0 1.2

Utilities 1.6 0

Insurance 1.6 0 Finance 0.8 0 Communication 0 4.0

In summary, about 90 percent of the total sample said they did not antici- pate any change in their annual dollar sales as a result of a 10-year changeover to the metric system of measurement, if the plan were to follow the 8

characteristics suggested. Less than 1 percent expected a decrease in revenues, either from U.S. or export sales, while about 3 percent expected an

increase in their annual dollar volumes.

The exporter subgroup more often anticipated an increase in foreign sales than did those not now engaged in international trade. The reader is cautioned that the data on expectations of either increased

or decreased annual dollar sales were based on insignificant numbers of respondents. The interpretations may or may not be valid as a result.

TABLES 101-104A & B

Q. IV—18a,b,c Q. 18 Let's talk about cost now. Do you think a

nationally planned 10-year changeover would

have any effect on your annual dollar costs? (IF YES TO Q. 18, ASK Q. 18a-18c)

Q. 18a Could you estimate the percent change in terms of your annual costs? Q. 1 8b About how long would you expect this change

in costs to affect your operation?
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 135

Q. 1 8c Which of the following would you estimate to be the most important factor in your (increase) (decrease) in costs: Labor Components Other

Equipment Inventory

Dollar sales may be a good index to gross volume of goods or services

handled in a year, but the costs attendant upon operations required to effect sales are perhaps a better indication of potential profits. If it can be assumed

that most organizations are normally operated in such a manner as to either make a profit or at least break even, then all other things being equal an

increase in costs would be detrimental to the economic health of the firm. A majority of concerns in the population of interest said they did not

believe their annual dollar costs would be affected by a nationally planned

10-year changeover to the metric system. There was some difference of opinion by company size class.

A planned 10-year conversion:

Number of employees

1 to 19 20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Should affect costs 28 41 50 39 Should not affect costs 66 54 47 56 Don't know/No answer 6 5 3 5

Industry Breakdown of the 39 Percent Expecting

Effects on Costs

Industry 1 Any effect on costs (N = 2563)

Percent within industry predicting: (N=1013)

Cost increases of Cost decreases of Don't know

if increase or decrease 0.5

to 5 percent

Over 5 percent 2

0.5

to 5 percent

Over 5 percent 2

Utilities 61 38 18 0 18 26 Wholesale Trade 53 27 26 0.9 17 26 Mining 52 39 14 1.8 11 34 Construction 48 37 17 1.4 12 31 Transportation 45 25 20 2.6 17 31 Communication 3 36 56 11 0 0 33

Retail Trade 34 30 20 1.4 8 36

Forestry/Fisheries 3 32 33 17 0 0 50

Services 30 25 25 4.3 12 31 Agriculture 30 23 17 3.3 7 47

Insurance 26 25 25 0 25 19 Real Estate 3 25 25 12 0 25 37 Finance 24 17 30 3.3 7 40

Total Sample 39

1 Listed in decreasing order of percent within industry predicting effect on costs.

2 Includes "Undetermined" amount.

3 Number of firms in that industry expecting any change in costs is less than 10.
136 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

If the cost expectancies are broken down into smaller segments of increase or decrease, we find:

Should affect costs by increases of: (in %)

Percent firms expecting costs

to be affected (Number = 1013, 39 percent of Total)

0.5 to 5.

30

106

5

11

6 to 10

11 to 25 Over 25 Undetermined amount

Total 62

By decreases of:

0.5 to 5 2

10.3 0.6

1

6 to 10

11 to 25 Over 25 Undetermined amount

Total 5

Don't Know whether increase or decrease 31

Medium and large business representatives mentioned increases of 5 per- cent or less more frequently than small business spokesmen did. Inspection of the above text table yields the information that several times more respondents expected increases than decreases in costs as a result of

change to metric measurement but one-third said they didn't know what kind

of cost change to expect.

The text table shows 4 industry groups in which approximately 50 percent

or more of the firms within the industry predicted that a nationally planned

10-year changeover would affect their annual dollar costs: Utilities, Wholesale Trade, Mining and Construction. In each of these 4 industries, more

than 45 percent of those who expected a change in costs predicted an

increase, 13 percent or over predicted a decrease, and at least a quarter of

the group did not know what would happen. Transportation, Insurance and

Real Estate also expected decreases in costs that exceeded the percentage for the total sample population for this question. There was no industry group, however, in which the percentage of firms predicting a decrease in costs was

greater than the percentage of firms predicting an increase. There were two groups in which the percentage of firms unable to designate

the direction of the predicted change in costs approached 50 percent:

Forestry/Fisheries and Agriculture. In all groups except Insurance (19%)

more than one-fourth of the respondents who expected a change in costs could not say whether the change would be an increase or a decrease.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 137

It may be useful to look at the opinions of companies when they are classified by level of annual gross dollar sales. As was pointed out in the intro- duction to this report, number of employees is not an infallible indication of

company size. The reader is cautioned, however, to remember that this analysis is being made on just those respondents who expected an effect on costs (39% of the total sample).

It should be noted that only three of the 167 firms with gross dollar volume

of $100 million or more which anticipated an effect on costs, expected any

decrease in costs with metrication.

Of Those Predicting Effect on Costs 1

Gross sales level in dollars

Under 1 to 100 100 million Over

1 million million to 1 billion 1 billion Prediction (N = 316) (N = 449) (N = 115) (N == 52)

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Increase in costs 197 62 312 69 73 63 29 56 Decrease in costs 14 4.5 22 4.9 2 1.7 1 1.9 Don't Know 105 33 115 26 40 35 22 42

1 N = 932 rather than 1013 due to "Don't Know" and "Refused to Answer" responses from 9 percent of the

total sample who could, therefore, not be classified for Gross Sales. See Table 102D for complete figures. The breakdown by originally suggested time period for changeover did not

present any striking differences from the proportions cited above. The 23 res- pondents who were opposed to changeover at any time were more doubtful

as to the actual change in costs expected. A slightly greater percentage of those who said the changeover could occur in 5 years or less expected

decreases in costs. More than % of the "Increased Costs" category, below, is made up (in every group except "Never") of respondents who said either that costs would increase 5 percent or less or that costs would increase by an undetermined percentage.

Of Those Predicting Effect on Costs 1

Originally Suggested Changeover Period

Within 6-10 10+ Never

5 Years Years Years (N = 23) (N = 253) (N=428) (N = 225)

Percent Percent Percent Percent

61 64 64 52

7 5 1 4 30 29 33 35

1 N = 928 rather than 1013 due to respondents who could not be classified as to originally suggested changeover

period. See table 102C for complete figures.

441-628 0-71 —10
138 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The large percentages of "Don't Know" responses and "Increase-Amount

Undetermined" responses again point out the uncertainty of the respondents

with respect to the degree of effect on costs metrication might bring. These

two categories accounted for nearly 40 percent of respondents in all sug- gested changeover time-period groups. The text table below is based on the 39 percent (N=1013) of the total population of interest who thought their costs would be changed by a nationally-planned 10-year conversion. It will be noted that the majority thought

that cost changes due to metrication would affect their companies for 10

years or less (69%). Thirty-six percent thought they would last 4 years or

less.

The 39 percent: Number of years change

in costs would affect company operations

Percent subsample

(N=1013)

Less than 1 8

1 9 2 8

3 7 4 4 5—7 11 8—10 22 More than 10 7 Don't Know 19 No Answer 4

A later probe to clarify whether respondents thought the percentage of

increase would apply to each year of the period of effect or would be spread over the entire period, showed

Percent

Estimated cost increase should be divided by number

of years in metrication changeover 83 Estimated cost increase was for each year of metrication changeover (no "% change in cost" estimate exceeded 2% for respondents in this group) 17

If, for example, a company specified it expected a 5 percent increase in costs over a 10 year period, the representative was actually saying he esti- mated that costs would be affected by only 0.5 percent, or one-half of 1 percent, for any 1 year of the metrication program. The majority of respondents

were, therefore, expecting a maximum rise of between 0.5 percent and 1 per- cent a year in their dollar costs during a limited span of time, if SI were to be adopted nationally.

Of the 39 percent (N=1013) of the total population which predicted

altered costs with a nationally planned 10-year changeover, only a little over

half (53%, N = 542) were able to estimate the magnitude and direction of

this change with a percentage figure based on annual costs. The table follow-
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 139

ing deals only with that portion ( 50% , N = 507) which stated a specific

increase in costs as shown below. It will be noted that the number of estimators of "0.5 to 5 percent increase" was at least 3 times as large as any other.

Number of years increase in costs

is expected to affect company

Percentage of respondents

predicting increase in costs as shown

operations +0.5 to 5 + 5 to 10 + 11 to 25 More than

percent percent percent 25 percent (N=507) (N = 295) (N=100) (N=65) (N=47)

0—1 years 24 17 15 8 2—4 years 25 26 13 22

5—7 years 11 13 15 11 8—10 years 23 26 35 28

10 years + 6 4 9 15 No Answer/Don't Know 10 14 11 15

Totals 1 99 100 98 99

1 Do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Inspection shows that for all increase levels a majority of firms predicted

company operations would be affected for some period up to 10 years. The subsample of 507 companies (about 20% of total sample) which pre- dicted specific percentages of increase in costs as a result of metrication, can

be further analyzed by employer size and number of years they thought the

costs would continue :

Estimated Number of Years Company Operations Might be

Affected by Increased Costs Due to Metrication (N = 507)

Number of employees

1- 19 20-249 >249 Total Years of effect Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Less than 1 10 8 16 9 16 8 42 8

1 19 16 19 11 23 11 61 12 2 12 10 20 11 23 11 55 11 3 8 7 17 10 15 7 40 8 4 8 7 9 5 7 3 24 5 5—7 13 11 26 15 23 11 62 12 8—10 20 16 40 23 70 33 130 26 10+ 8 7 11 6 15 7 34 7 Don't Know/No Answer 23 18 17 10 19 9 59 12

Total 121 100 175 100 211 100 507 100
140 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

A few entrepreneurs (N = 35, or 1.4% of total sample) said they expected

that a planned metrication program would decrease their costs. This group was so small that analysis is relatively meaningless, but a table will be pre- sented in order that these spokesmen may have "equal time" with those

anticipating increased expenses.

Estimated Number of Years Company Operations Might be

Affected by Decreased Costs Due to Metrication (N = 35)

Number of employees

No. of years of effect 1- 19 20-249 >249 Total

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Less than 1 1 5 1 9 2 6

1 1 5 1 3 2 1 5 1 9 3 8

3 1 17 2 11 3 8 4 1 5 1 9 2 6 5—7 2 11 1 9 3 8 8—10 1 5 2 18 3 8 10+ 1 17 2 11 2 18 5 14 Don't Know/No Answer 4 66 7 39 3 27 13 37

Total 6 100 18 100 11 100 35 100

Companies Stating that Cost Increase Will Affect Company

Operations for 8 to 10 Years

Gross sales level Number Percent of size class 1

Under SI million (N=316) 48 15

1 to 100 million (N = 449) 111 25 100 million to 1 billion (N=115) 36 31 Over 1 billion (N=52) 23 44

Percent of total sample (N = 2562) 229 9

Percent of subsample expecting cost change (N= 1013) 23

1 N = 220 rather than 229 because some firms were not classified according to gross sales.

"Labor" was named most frequently as the reason for increased or decreased costs by the 39 percent who expected a national metrication pro- gram to affect their annual expenses. Replacement of equipment was the next
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 141

most frequently mentioned factor. "Components" was also mentioned by a

large proportion of respondents.

Factors rcsnonsihlf* for effects on costs

(as named by the 39 percent expecting changes)

Percent of

expecters only 1 (N=1013)

Percent of

total sample

(N = 2562)

Labor 33 13 Equipment 20 8 Inventory 9 8 Components 16 6 Miscellaneous 19 8

1 Multiple answers permitted, adds to more than 100 percent. By industry, of those most often expecting cost changes, the factor of

greatest import was said to be:

Of Those Within Each Industry Expecting Change in Costs,

Percent Citing Each Important Factor

Equipment Labor Components

Construction 8 55 18 Real Estate 1 12 62 0 Finance 23 40 10 Insurance 19 31 12 Communications 1 11 11 33

Retail Trade 22 29 15 Services 23 34 18 Transportation 23 27 16 Wholesale Trade 19 24 16 Mining 18 29 21

Utilities 13 31 15 Agriculture 50 20 7 Forestry/Fisheries 1 17 0 33

1 Fewer than 10 firms in that industry expected a change in costs.

The breakdown of entrepreneur opinions by dollar volume of annual sales closely parallels the data for employer size groups but was preferred for pres- entation below because it shows clearly the concern for equipment obsoles- cence among the largest corporations.

Reason for effect on costs as given by the 39 percent expecting cost changes

(N=1013)

Percent by gross dollar sales

Under

1 million

1-100

million

100 million

to 1 billion Over

1 billion

Labor 31 36 30 21 Equipment 23 18 18 27

Inventory 7 10 10 13 Components 18 14 16 17
142 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

In summary:

A majority of the total sample (56%) thought that a 10-year nationally

planned conversion to the metric system should have no effect on their costs of operation.

Of the 39 percent who stated positively that conversion to SI would have an

effect on their annual dollar costs:

• A majority expected the effect to be an increase in expenses (61%) with

from 0.5 to 5 percent being mentioned most often;

• A few (less than 5% ) expected a decrease in costs; • Medium and large firms expected increased costs more frequently than

small concerns;

• Estimations of added costs were expressed as percentages of total annual

dollar costs for the complete period of changeover, not on a year by

year basis; • Those who had originally stated that changeover to metric measurement

ought to take more than 10 years, more often thought their costs would

be higher with a nationally planned changeover of 10 years;

• A majority of those who expected increased costs due to conversion

thought company operations would be affected for less than 10 years;

• The reasons most often given for the expected change in costs of operation were labor, equipment and components—in that order.

• The industries most often anticipating a rise in costs with a 10-year

planned conversion (in terms of the total sample populations within

each industry) were Utilities (45%), Wholesale Trades (36%),

Mining (34% ), Construction (32% ) and Transportation (28% ). • Labor costs were mentioned most frequently by Construction, Real Estate and Finance representatives (in terms of the respondents within each

industry who said costs would be affected.)

• The large proportion of "don't know" (what level of costs to expect) answers given by the 39 percent who said they expected effects on costs, leads the analyst to think that there may have been at least some "viewing with alarm" by many of these respondents with consequently ele- vated cost estimates. Disinclination to make a change from the present

system was probably expressed as concern over attendant costs, at least

in some industries.

TABLES 105-106A, B, C & D

Qs. IV—19,19a Q. 19 Would such a changeover affect your sell- ing price?

0. 19a (IF YES TO Q. 19) About what percent

increase or decrease in unit price might

you expect?

Only a little over half (22%) as many firms expected to have to change

their selling prices as anticipated changes in costs (39% ).
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 143

Effect on selling price

Number of employees

1 to 19 20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent Would affect selling price 19 22 27 22 No effect on price 73 72 68 71 No Answer/Don't Know 8 6 5 6

The above text table shows that more large employers felt they would

probably have to change price as a consequence of metrication than would

small companies.

The breakdown of this question by size of company based on gross dollar

sales again emphasizes the point that the larger the company, the more fre- quently any new costs would be passed on to the consumer

Gross dollar sales A change in costs: Under

1 million

1-100

Million

100 Million + 1 billion Over

1 billion

Total sample

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Would affect selling price 19 25 26 46 22 No effect on price 74 70 68 51 71 No Answer/Don't Know 6 5 5 3 6

In every industry a decided majority said a nationally planned 10-year

changeover would have no effect on the selling prices of their goods, but the Wholesale Trades and Utilities industry most often expected to make up any

added costs by passing them on to the customers:

Industry

Should not

affect selling price 1

Should

affect selling price 1

Percent Percent

Wholesale Trade 61 34

Utilities 59 33 Construction 65 32 Mining 65 30

Forestry & Fisheries 68 26

Retail Trade 69 24

71 22

Services 78 16 Agriculture 76 11 Real Estate 88 9 88 8 87 7 Finance 94 3

1 Percent of own industry. Percents to make 100 are to be found in No Answer/Don't Know categories
144 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Those who either suggested that conversion should take more than 10

years or who did not want it to happen at all, more often thought their sell- ing prices would be affected by the change to metric measurement. Firms

holding these two opinions comprised only 7 percent (N=175) of the total sample population.

If further analysis is made of the 22 percent of the total sample who

thought their selling prices would be affected by the costs attendant on metrication, we find that over half of the group expected these prices to go up, a few thought they might go down, but over one-third could predict neither the

direction nor the magnitude of possible change. These proportions closely paralleled those expressed with regard to changes in cost as a result of metrication, except that only half as many expected to change their selling prices as anticipated increases in costs of operation. The large number of "Don't Know" responses to both cost and selling price questions probably indicated

that much of the remaining data gathered was based on opinion rather than

actual computations. In any event, about half of those organizations which

forecast increased costs apparently expected to absorb these increases to keep

their prices competitive.

For those companies stating that they would pass the costs on, the up-to-5

percent level was most often specified as being the likely rise in price for the consumer. Relatively equal percentages of employers by size class were rep- resented within each possible increase or decrease percentage level.

Level of increase or decrease expected

in unit selling price:

Proportion of the 22 percent expecting

effect on selling price

Increase:

0.5 to 5 percent. . .

6 to 10 percent

11 to 25 percent 25 percent or more

Undetermined

Total (increase) . .

Decrease:

0.5 to 5 percent. . .

6 to 10 percent

11 to 25 percent . 25 percent or more. Undetermined

Total (decrease)

Don't Know/No Answer

Percent

26

13

Hi

62

0.7

0.9

0.3

0.3

0.3

2.5

35

In the table (p. 145) are listed the 13 industry groups with the percentage

in each that foresaw selling price changes as a result of metrication. It will be

noted that in all industries only a minority of the total sample for that group

expected selling prices to increase. The "Don't Know" column shows one
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 145

remarkable figure—not one organization in the Real Estate business ventured

a guess as to what might happen to selling prices for real property.

Percents Within Each Industry Group Reacting to Possible Price Change

Percent

predicting pprppnt nrprlirti na

Don't

Industry change in Know

selling price Increase Decrease n i i

1 V) Utilities 33 27 9 Construction 32 22 11 Mining 30 15 15 Forest/Fisheries 26 21 5 Retail Trade 24 13 0.4 9 Transportation 22 14 8 Services 16 10 0.7 5 Agriculture 11 6 1.0 5 Real Estate 9 9 Communication 8 4 8 Insurance 7 5 Finance 3 3 2

The favored estimate of selling price rise was in the range of 1 to 5 percent. Only in the Forestry/ Fisheries, Construction and Wholesale industries were there appreciable numbers of organizations estimating price rises greater

than the lowest range but less than 10 percent of the members in each of these groups made such predictions. In summary, only a minority in each industry expected to have to change

their selling prices as a result of a planned national 10-year conversion to SI. Of the 39 percent who expected changes in cost of company operations as a

result of metrication, just about half expected to pass the costs on to the con- sumer by raising selling prices. A majority of the total sample (71%) did not anticipate having to make any change in the selling prices of their goods.

Possible price rises forecast by the minority were mostly expected to be

below 5 percent. Spokesmen for companies having over $1 billion in annual

sales most often (46%) said that metrication would have an effect on the

prices charged to their consumers.

TABLES 107-109A, B & C

110-1 12A & B

Qs. IV—20,21,22,23,23a, Q. 20 Would any of your employees

have to be retrained if the United States were to go metric?

(IF YES TO Q. 20, ASK Q.

21-23a)
146 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

About what percent would have

to be retrained?

What do you think it might cost your company on the average to retrain an employee?

How does this compare with the

costs for originally training an employee?

Then you think that it would re- quire just as long to retrain your

personnel in the new system of measurement as it took to teach

them their job skills in the beginning?

Over 60 percent of the organizations in the population of interest said it would be necessary for them to retrain their employees to use metric measurement if there were national changeover to SI. The larger employers more

frequently claimed they would have to cope with this problem:

Number of employees

1 to 19 20 to 249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Would need to retrain employees 49 63 70 60 No retraining needed 48 35 28 37 No Answer/Don't Know 3 2 2 2

In only 3 industries did a majority of spokesmen say that retraining would

not be a significant issue:

Percent of industry

saying no

retraining needed

Finance 62

Agriculture 54 Communications 52

All other industries showed a majority expecting that retraining would be

necessary. The leaders of this group were Utilities with 80 percent, Construction with 76 percent and Wholesalers with 72 percent of the representatives

foreseeing educational efforts for at least some employees.

The following analysis will deal only with the 60 percent of all respondents

who stated that retraining of employees would be necessary if SI were

adopted in the U.S. With the advent of SI, 1551 employers (60% of sample) said from less than 1 percent to 100 percent of their personnel would have to be retrained

Large organizations had the highest representation on nearly all levels. In the

Q. 21

Q. 22

Q. 23

Q. 23a
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 147

table below the percentages of employees seen as candidates for retraining

have been grouped but the message is still clear:

Percent of employees

requiring retraining;

Number of employees

1-19 (N=415)20-249 (N = 540) 250+

(N = 595)

Total (N=1551)

Percent Percent Percent Percent 0—5 6 9 12 9 6—30 8 20 25 18 31—99 15 22 26 22 100 66 43 31 45 No Answer/Don't Know 6 5 6 6

Within industries, the proportions varied widely for employees said to need

retraining. In the table below is presented an ordered list of educational

requirements along with the industries most often naming each needed level. In the Finance group, for example, 64 percent of the respondents said that none (0%) of their employees would have to be retrained in order to do

their jobs, but only 37 percent of the total survey sample estimated that no (0%) reeducation would be necessary.

Percent Firms Stating a Certain Percent of Employees

Would Require Retraining

Percent total sample

specifying

level

Principal industries specifying this level

Percent total sample within

industry

specifying

this level

37

6

4

4

3

5

3

4

27

Finance

Agriculture Insurance

Forestry/Fisheries Communications

Mining

Communications

Mining

Utilities Agri.; Forest/Fisheries; Wholesale Trade

Forestry/Fisheries

Utilities

Utilities Wholesale

Construction Mining; Transport; Wholesale Trade

Wholesale; Retail Transport; Utilities
148 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Consistent with their previous position on the metrication issue, those firms

suggesting the longest time for conversion also expected to have to retrain the largest proportions of their employees. Only the 100 percent retraining

level is presented below to illustrate this point:

Changeover Time Period Originally Suggested by this Group

Within

5 yrs. (N = 741)

6-10 yrs. (N = 1089)

More than

10 yrs. (N = 365) Never (N = 46)

Total 1 (N = 2563)

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Expect to retrain 100 percent of employees 24 25 38 41 27

1 Respondents in the 4 changeover time period groups do not add to 2563 due to firms who gave no answer when asked to suggest a changeover time table.

Retraining is a problem with numerous ramifications. In an industry such

as Construction, where all skilled and semi-skilled workmen constantly use measurements, reeducation to a practical application level would be an

urgent problem. In other industries, such as Finance or Insurance, employees

already work almost entirely with a decimal system and have little need to use physical measurement in their work. In addition, the original instruction

given to persons using measurements regularly is often more oriented toward

the techniques of making the measurements and the reasons why they are needed than to the mechanics of manipulating the measurement units. These

latter factors often constitute the main thrust of industrial on-the-job training.

Training is often so gradual that employers don't have precise ideas of how much it really costs. A carpenter, for example, usually starts as an

apprentice, but works at those portions of the job he is able to do while

learning his craft. He will probably take five or so years to become a skilled

artisan. What did his training cost? His employer has only a general idea. The respondents in this survey said these kinds of things indirectly in the answers they gave to the interviewers. When asked what they thought it might cost their companies to retrain their employees to use the metric sys- tem, the majority simply said they didn't know. This same feeling is present

in other tables pertaining to the training situation and the analyst is pretty

nearly faced with a dichotomy—employers knew original training had cost

either very little or a good deal, with sums in between appearing to be scat- tered. Employers in all size classes estimated much the same costs for train- ing individuals regardless of which cost level they had specified. For this rea- son, only "Total" percentages will be quoted on the following page.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 149

Percent of firms expecting Estimated cost to retrain an to have to retrain any

employee: employee (60% of total sample) (N=1551)

$1—25 9 $26—29 5 $100—199 6 $200—299 3 $300—499 2 $500—999 4 Over $1000 8 Don't Know/No Answer 62

By industry those employers who expected to have to retrain but said they

didn't know how much it would cost, ranged between a low of 42 percent for Forestry/Fisheries and a high of 73 percent for Agriculture. The industry

most frequently saying that the cost per employee would be "over $1000"

was Construction.

Those respondent companies where spokesmen had originally specified the

shorter periods of time for conversion to metric measurement, apparently had

fewer employee retraining problems. A higher percentage of the short conversion people than of any other group said they would have to do no retraining

(about 40 to 45% ) and a lower percentage of them gave "Don't Know" an- swers to the question of dollar cost for any reeducation that might be neces- sary (see table 109C).

It was appropriate to ask how the estimated costs of retraining employees

compared with the amounts originally expended to educate personnel for

their jobs. Differences by size of employee groups were not appreciable, so only totals are shown in the following text table

Cost of retraining compared

to original investment:

Percent of sample 1 (N=1551)Percent industry saying

this most often: 1

Little compared to original cost

Less

Same

More

Twice as much

Don't Know/No Answer

Finance 20 Communications 17

Utilities 35 Finance 32

Agriculture 23

Retail Trade 13 Forestry/Fish 33

Services 19 Agriculture 4

Real Estate 66

Agriculture 43

Forestry/Fish 49

1 Of those who said retraining would be necessary.
150 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Opinions within industries as to the price of retraining compared with the

original training expenditures were, of course, divided, but those with obviously less need for measurement did estimate lower retraining cost levels. Nearly all industries had some small percentage of estimates at each of the

categories in the preceding table. Thirty-eight percent of the subsample that thought retraining would be

needed said that it would take the same length of time as the original instruc- tion had required. In summary, 60 percent of all respondents—a majority in all but 3 industries, predicted their employees would have to be retrained in order to carry out their work. The number of employees requiring tutoring ranged from less than 1 percent to 100 percent of the staff with more small organizations saying that all of their workers would have to be reeducated. In general, those

firms expecting to have to retrain the higher percentages of employees also suggested that conversion take place over a longer period of time.

Retraining costs appeared to be largely guess work by respondents, with

values clustered in the relatively low dollar categories. Those willing to convert in the shortest periods of time apparendy expected to have to do the

least retraining. Evidence presented in this series of tables validates information given in answer to Q. 18c (table 104A) where "Labor" was specified by

33 percent of the sample as being the most important factor in increased

costs attendant upon conversion to SI.

TABLES 11 3-11 4A & B

Qs. IV—24, 25 Q. 24 How many persons are employed in your

organization on the average?

Q. 25 What were your approximate gross sales or

gross dollar volume for the 1969 business

year?

Size of organization as indicated by number of employees, placed a small

majority of firms (57%) in the "under 100" staff size categories. It should

be remembered, however, that number of employees is a fallible index since the more highly automated industries have few personnel in relation to the amount of work performed.

A series of histograms is presented on pages 151-155 showing the per- centages of employees and of gross annual sales within each industry for the

categories specified. The graphic form permits ready comparison of the two

sets of data and a more nearly accurate estimate of the proportion of each

industry in the sample population.

In the figure for tables 113B and 114B, respondent's organizations by in- dustry are compared for number of employees and gross annual dollar sales. The shapes of the two profiles compare reasonably well, but do not correspond

exactly. Industries which contain the giant organizations contrast clearly with

those comprised largely of small firms. Questions 24 and 25 were asked to permit gathering of information which

would define the respondent population as exactly as possible.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 151

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS (BY INDUSTRY GROUP)

BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND BY ANNUAL GROSS DOLLAR SALES

(TABLES 113 AND 114)

HAVING EMPLOYEES AT THESE LEVELS

AGRICULTURE

FORESTRY / FISH

MINING

% GROSS $ SALES

Category

to

UJs

<

to

tr5

_jo

a

Ll. O

CO

_l

LU>

LU

LU

_l<

CO

cc3

o

Q

o

CO-J

UJ>

UI

30 40

CO

LU<

COCC5

_1o

Q

u.o

LU>

LU

123

4

56

78

10

1112

13

12

34

56

78

9

10

11 12

13

10 20 30 40

10 20 30 40
152 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS (BY INDUSTRY GROUP)

BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND BY ANNUAL GROSS DOLLAR SALES

(TABLES 113 AND 114)

% HAVING EMPLOYEES AT THESE LEVELS % GROSS $ SALES

CONSTRUCTION

TRANSPORTATION

COMMUNICATION

1-10 10-19 20-49

50-99

100-249

250-499

500-999

1K-2.5K

2.5K-10K

over 10K

<

<-J

_iO

o

o

(/) _J

UJ>

UJ

cf> al_J<

if) cco

o

o

if)

t UJ>

Category

12

34

5

6

78

910

111213

<f) 1 UJ 2 < 3

to 4 <_» 5

OL 6 a 7

u. 8 o

</) 9

_i 10 > 11

-J 1213

10 20 30 40

10 20 30 40

10 20 30 40
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 153

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS (BY INDUSTRY GROUP)

BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND BY ANNUAL GROSS DOLLAR SALES

(TABLES 113 AND 114)

% HAVING EMPLOYEES AT THESE LEVELS % GROSS $ SALES

Category

WHOLESALE TRADE

30 40

RETAIL TRADE

1-10 10-19 20-49

50-99

100-249

250-499

500-999

1K-2.5K 2.5K-10K

over 10K

UJ<

<o

Q

O

Ixl >

Ixl

W

Ixl -J<<—Io

a

u.O

(/) _i

Ixl >

Ixl

_l<

V)

en<

_Jo

Q

o

en

_j

lxl >lxl

10 20 30 40

12

34

5

6

78

9

10

1112

13

441-628 0-71 — 11
154 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS (BY INDUSTRY GROUP)

BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND BY ANNUAL GROSS DOLLAR SALES

(TABLES 113 AND 114)

% HAVING EMPLOYEES AT THESE LEVELS

FINANCE

INSURANCE

1-10 10-19 20-49

50-99

100-249

250-499

500-999

1K-2.5K

2.5K-10K

over 10K

REAL ESTATE

30 40

% GROSS $ SALES

CO

LU_l<

CO

<r5

_io

Q

u.O

CO>

UJ

Category

CO

LU_l<

CO5

_lOQ

u.O

CO

-J

LU>LU

10 20 30 40

CO 1

LU_J 2 < 3

CO

cc 4 <_i 5

_1o 6

Q 7

u. 8 o

9 CO

_l

UJ 10 >

UJ 11

_j 1213 10 20 30 40

12

34

56

78

9

10

111213

10 20 30 40
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 155

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS (BY INDUSTRY GROUP)

BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND BY ANNUAL GROSS DOLLAR SALES

(TABLES 113 AND 114)

% HAVING EMPLOYEES AT THESE LEVELS % GROSS $ SALES

TABLES 1 ISA, B & C

Q. IV—26 Which of the following choices most closely indicates the current attitude of your company toward increased metric

usage in your operations?

Three questions were common to both this survey and the Manufacturing

Survey. These questions were believed to be of special significance in deter- mining overall attitudes toward national adoption of metric measurement.

They also served to establish a common denominator between manufacturing

and nonmanufacturing survey data. The 3 questions attempted to determine:

1. What the attitudes of the respondents' companies were toward in- creased metric usage and how strongly they felt about it, i.e., would

they be willing to changeover; (Q. 26)

2. Whether they thought it was in the best interests of the country to adopt SI (Q. 27); and

3. If it were decided that metric measurement should be adopted, what

kind of national changeover policy should be used—a planned or evolutionary policy; a mandatory or totally voluntary program. (Q. 28)

Answers to the first of these questions showed nearly half of the total sample carefully taking a neutral position on the issue, with just about equal

representation from all employer sized groups (see histograms, p. 157).
156 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Those in the neutral category indicated through extra comments made to the interviewers that their organizations realized the costs that would be involved

in converting to a new measurement system, but they were not willing to stand against a trend that might possibly improve the national economic position. They were, simply, willing to let others make the decision, those to whom the issue was perhaps more critical. The neutral group implied they

would go along with whatever the majority decided. In two industries, respondents spoke appreciably more often against metrication than for it

Percent of industry

Against For

Construction 37 24

Agriculture 28 23

As might be expected, those spokesmen whose companies wanted to take more than 10 years for conversion were also most frequendy "strongly

against" any increase in use of metric measurement by their own organizations (25% of their group).

In an attempt to see if certain special characteristics relative to metric

usage or foreign commerce had some relationship to company attitude, three subpopulations were compared with the total sample : ( 1

) all exporting firms,

(2) all firms having licensees or subsidiaries in foreign countries, and (3) all firms making significant use of equipment, supplies, or components described

in metric units or designed to metric standards.

< jMivi!j;>J i.>

: , /

; vbi;hjid'£ :id floiereasedl Mefirk Usage in Own Operations

Percent firms Percent total Percent export Percent firms using metric population firms with licensees/ equipment,

subsidiaries supplies,

components

(N = 2563) (N = 298) (N=291) (N = 445)

Strongly for 13 12 14 26

Mildly for 17 26 22 27 Neutral 43 31 42 32 Mildly against 12 16 10 8 Strongly against 14 12 10 6 Don't Know/No Answer.

0.7 1 1 0.8

Totals 1 100 98 99 100

1 Total may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 157

ATTITUDES TOWARD INCREASED METRIC

USAGE WITHIN OWN COMPANY (Table n5)

10 20 30 40

Percent Firms Expressing Attitude 50

COMPANY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD INCREASED METRIC

USAGE WITHIN OWN COMPANY (Table us)

Strongly For ,i

1

1

i - —

Size Class No. of Employees

1-19

in

ro O

<u Mildly For N h

_ ___|

l

20-249 > 249

Total

»i 1 . CO

"O£ Neutral

i

0)D.X

UJ

a> "g Mildly Against <

1 u

Strongly Against

—1 ^

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent Firms Expressing Attitude
158 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

All three of the subgroups shown on page 156 differed from the total population in company attitudes toward increased metric usage. Exporters

and "metric users" had fewer firms in the neutral category and more firms

expressing favorable attitudes. Firms having licensees or subsidiaries had

approximately the same proportion of neutral firms as the total sample population; fewer unfavorable attitudes expressed. The group of firms which is currently using goods or equipment designed to metric standards or described

in metric units, held by far the most favorable attitudes: a majority (53%)

said they were strongly or mildly for increased metric usage in their own

operations as compared with the 30 percent of the total population.

Responses to this question were also cross-tabulated with the answers which were given during the first interview when respondents were asked to define the metric system. As the text table below shows, those respondents

who had given acceptable definitions ("full" or "partial") tended to be from

firms where attitudes were more positive toward metric usage in company operations.

Company attitude toward

increased metric usage

Percent having given each

definition of metric system 1

Full

(N=307)

Partial

(N=1553)

Incorrect

(N=115)

Don't know

(N=513)

Total sample

(N = 2563)

Strongly for 18 15 15 4 13 Mildly for 25 19 20 9 17 Neutral 35 42 37 49 43 Mildly against 10 12 8 15 12 Strongly against 11 12 20 22 14 Don't Know/No Answer 1 1 0 1 1

1 Not included is "No Answer" to Q. 1-3.

In summary: Forty-three percent of the total sample remained noncommittal about company attitudes toward increased metric usage in their own

firms. Slightly more firms expressed favorable attitudes than unfavorable

ones. Those firms which had more knowledge of and/or experience in using the metric system were much more favorably inclined toward increasing metric

usage within their own companies, although even these groups contained

small percentages who were "strongly against" this policy.

TABLE 116A, B & C

Q. IV—27 Do you believe that increased metric usage is in the best

interests of the United States? A substantial majority of the population of interest stated they believed

that increased usage of metric measurement was in the best national interest.
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 159

Large employers said this significantly more often than small employers, but

the majority opinion was favorable toward national metrication in all employer size classes.

Believe increased metric usage is: Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250+ Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent

In best interests of U.S 52 61 72 61 Not in best interests of U.S 27 23 15 22 Don't Know/No Answer 20 16 12 16

PERCEIVED "BEST INTEREST" OF U.S. IN TERMS OF

INCREASED METRIC USAGE (BY SIZE CLASS) (Table nej

Not in Best Interest

Don't Know

1-19 20-249

i >249

Total

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Expressing Response

A majority in all industries supported the idea that increased metric usage was best for the nation. The range of endorsement levels is shown below:

Lowest plurality—Agriculture 52 Highest plurality—Finance 71 The percentages by individual industry are shown in the histograms on page

160. It will be noted that Construction representatives showed a 57 percent

majority who believed increased metric usage was in the best interests of the U.S., even though they had been the most opposed of any group to increased use of metric measurement within their own industry (see table 1 15B).
160 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

IS INCREASED METRIC USAGE IN

THE BEST INTEREST OF THE U.S.?

20 40 60

Percent Within Industry

80 100

IS INCREASED METRIC USAGE IN

THE BEST INTEREST OF THE U.S.? (BY INDUSTRY)

•Yes •No d-Don't Know/

No AnswerServices

20 40 60

Percent Within Industry

80 100
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 161

Each of the three subgroups had higher percentages of firms which believed

that increased metric usage is in the best interests of the U.S. than did the

total sample population. All three also had much smaller percentages of firms

which gave "Don't Know" responses. Those firms which had foreign licensees and subsidiaries and those currently using metric goods and equipment stood

out with approximately % or more of each group advocating inpreased metric usage for the U.S.

Is Increased Metric Usage In The Best Interest of The U.S.?

Percent firms Percent total Percent export Percent firms using metric population firms with licensees/ equipment,

subsidiaries supplies,

component

(N = 2563) (N = 298) (N=291) (N = 445)

Is in best interest ......... 61 70 74 79 Not in best interest 22 22 16 13 Don't Know/No Answer.

16 7 10 8

Totals 1 99 99 100 100

1 Total may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Again, those firms where designated respondents had exhibited greater

knowledge about the metric system expressed more favorable opinions about

use of the metric system in the U.S. The differences between these groups are

quite striking:

Is increased metric usage

in best interests of U.S.-

Percent having given each

definition of metric system 1

Full

(N=307)

Partial

(N=1553)

Incorrect

(N=115)

Don't know

(N=513)

Total sample

(N = 2563)

Yes 75 67 59 38 61 No 13 19 25 35 22 Don't Know 11 13 14 27 16 No Answer 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2

1 Not included is "No Answer" to Q. 1-3.

In summary, a majority of firms in all size classes and in all industry

groups said that they felt increased metric usage is in the best interests of the United States. More than % of the members of each of the special interest
162 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

groups with the greatest knowledge of metric measurements and the greatest contacts with metric countries expressed this opinion.

TABLE 1

7A, B & C

Q. IV—28 If it is found that metric usage is in the best interests of the U.S., which of the following courses of action, in your opinion, is preferable?

All employer size groups showed a majority preferring a mandatory rather

than a voluntary national metrication program.

Type conversion Number of employees

1-19 20-249 250 + Total

Mandatory national program 57 63 67 62 Voluntary national program 23 24 26 24 Voluntary only, no national program 12 7 4 8

PREFERRED COURSE OF ACTION

IF METRIC USAGE IS FOUND TO BE IN THE

BEST INTERESTS OF THE U.S. (BY SIZE CLASS) (Table n?)

Mandatory

,

1 Program

co

y Voluntary

h— National ° Program

U)

1 , d

1 Size Class

No. of Employees

1-19

l—l ?n-?4Q

oo

"? No National

t Program

* Voluntary MH

1 >249

Total

No Answer

Don't Know

1

________

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent Firms Expressing Opinion
DISCUSSION OF TABLES FOR ALL QUESTIONS 163

No industry in this sample recorded a majority in favor of anything but a mandatory national program. Inspection of the figure for table 117B (p. 162)

will show that:

In favor of mandatory Industry & Percent

national conversion programs

Lowest pluralities Agriculture 57 Forestry/Fisheries 58 Highest plurality Insurance 74

Those who said "Never" to metrication "voted" most frequently for a totally voluntary changeover with no national program. Only 1 1 percent of this group conceded that increased use of metric measurements was in the best

interests of the U.S. The "Never" group, it will be remembered, was consti- tuted of 44 spokesmen, or less than 2 percent of the population surveyed.

These respondents were concentrated in the Wholesale and Retail Trades and

the Construction industries. The three subgroups of interest were again compared with the total sample

population in the text table below.

Preferred Course of Action if Increased Metric is Found to be in Best Interests of the U.S.

Percent firms Percent total Percent export Percent firms using metric population firms with licensees/ equipment,

subsidiaries supplies,

component

(N = 2563) (N = 298) (N=291) (N = 445)

Mandatory (legislation) . .

62 63 67 67 Coordinated national program 24 27 23 24

Totally voluntary 8 6 6 6 Don't Know/No Answer.

6 4 4 3

Totals 100 100 100 100

The proportions of respondents expressing each opinion were remarkably

similar among these three special subgroups and also to the proportions found

in the total population. Despite the large differences in attitude expressed in the two previous questions, all groups favored a mandatory program based on legislation, if metrication should come.
164 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

The text table below shows the cross-tabulation of "metric definition" with

the responses to this question. Again, the most knowledgeable groups express

the total population response with greater intensity.

If increased metric usage is

Percent having given each

definition of metric system 1

in best interests, what course

of action- Full Partial Incorrect Don't Total know sample

(N=307) (N=1553) (N=115) (N=513) (N = 2563)

National program (mandatory) .68 65 57 52 62 National program (voluntary) . . 23 25 28 21 24 No national program

voluntary 5 6 8 14 8 Don't Know 2 3 7 11 5 No Answer 1 0.1 0 2 1

1 Not included are "No Answer" to Q. 1-3.

In summary, more than three-fourths of the total sample favored nationally

planned metrication over a totally voluntary evolution. A majority of all size classes and industries said that if the U.S. goes metric, there should be a mandatory national policy to that effect.
Appendix A

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

A. SAMPLE SELECTION

The original sampling plan identified 98 types of nonmanufacturing firms

at the two or three digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) 1 level. These firms were located in the following major industry groups

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries

Mining

Construction

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Wholesale and Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

Services

By combining similar categories, the original 98 types of firms were re- duced to 87 sample groups. An equal number of firms was to be contacted

within each sample group and within each of three size categories

1. Small firms (1-19 employees).

2. Medium-sized firms (20-249 employees).

3. Large firms (250 or more employees).

With the population of interest thus generally defined, the problem of

identifying a representative number of respondents both within each Division

and with relation to the economy at large, was approached by using the Statistical Abstract of the United States.'2 Some redefining of industry alignments was appropriate with identification of representation in the population so the following list of thirteen groups became the basis for the analysis by industries : Table 1. Breakdown of Sample by Industry Group

Representation

Percent Percent of total of total sample sample Agriculture 3.9 Wholesale Trade 16.6

Forestry/Fisheries 0.7 Retail Trade 16.4 Mining 4.2 Finance 4.8

Construction 11.8 Insurance 2.4

Transportation 10.1 Real Estate 1.2 Communication 0.9 Services 24.2

Utilities 2.5

1 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D.C.; Government Printing Office, 1967.

2 Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., June, 1969.165
166 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Although a sample of 1,500 firms would have been sufficient to represent

nonmanufacturing industry in the U.S., a much larger number was chosen to insure the adequate representation of all SIC sample groups. In 84 of the sample groups a total of 30 firms was to be contacted, 10 in each size cate- gory. The three groups in which there was an exception to this procedure were No. 1 (Agricultural production) in which 90 interviews were to be obtained, No. 8 (Building) in which there were to be 45 firms, and No. 27

(Electric and Gas Utilities) which was to contain 60 firms. Thus, the total hypothetical sample consisted of 2,715 companies. A breakdown of the 87

sample groups can be found in table 2. With a universe of about 1 1 million organizations eligible for inclusion in the survey, the only source where a satisfactory proportion of the total population of interest was available was the Social Security Administration. In

the SSA files all establishments which employ one or more persons are listed. Samples of just names, addresses and number of employees in the taxable or- ganizations can be drawn only for government-sponsored, nonregulatory re- search purposes if proper security can be assured. The SSA provided a basic

sample of 28,184 establishments proportional to predetermined representational requirements.

A primary stratified sample of 2,828 firms was randomly selected from the 28,184 firms in the SSA sample. To this primary sample were added 40 rail- roads, since SSA files do not include railroads, for a total of 2,868 sample

units (table 2). In addition, a secondary sample of 2,258 firms was ran- domly selected as a source of replacements for refusals, firms which had gone

out of business, etc.

B. INTERVIEWING PROCEDURE

1. Interview method.—Due to the complexity and volume of information

desired from each respondent, the use of a mail questionnaire was obviated.

Some type of personal contact was regarded as necessary. Since cost considerations ruled out a personal, face-to-face interview, the most feasible approach entailed the use of telephone interviews. In order to optimize both respondents' cooperation and the receipt of the desired information, the actual interviewing procedure was divided into four

phases.

Phase I.—A letter, signed by the Secretary of Commerce, was mailed to the president of each of the sample firms. This letter explained the intent of

the Metric Study and stressed the importance of participation by the respondent firm. It also asked the president of the company to designate an individual

within the firm (preferably the highest officer of the firm with the necessary

technical information) to handle all further contacts regarding the survey. Accompanying this letter was an information sheet on the Metric Study and

a reprint of an article on the Metric Study which had appeared in the August

10, 1970 issue of Time Magazine.

Phase II.—Within 3 weeks of the mailing of the Phase I material a tele- phone call was placed to the office of the president of the organization. The
APPENDIX A 167

Table 2. Breakdown of Primary Sample by SIC Sample

Group and Company Size

SIC's included in group

Number of employees

total 1-19 20-249 250 or more

90 30 30 30

33 13 10 10 27 10 11 6 32 10 11 11 30 10 10 10

31 10 11 10

31 10 11 10 46 16 15 15 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 36 10 12 14

33 13 10 10

32 11 10 11 36 12 12 12

41 19 10 12

31 11 10 10 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10

33 10 10 13 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 30 9 10 11 31 10 10 11 30 10 10 10

63 20 23 20

30 10 10 10

33 12 10 11 31 11 10 10 30 10 10 10 34 10 11 13 33 11 12 10 30 10 10 10

31 10 11 10 41 19 12 10

39 10 18 11 32 10 10 12 32 11 11 10 32 10 12 10 30 10 10 10

31 10 10 11 32 11 10 11 31 11 10 10 30 10 10 10

33 11 11 11

0107

08, 09

10

11, 12

1314

15161 162

171 172

173 174

175

176

177, 178, 179 412

411,413,414, 415,417

422, 423

421

44. 45

46, 473, 474, 478

471, 472

4849

501 502

503 504

505 506 507

508 5091 5092

5096

5097

5098

5093, 5094, 5095, 5099

521 . 522, 523, 524, 525

5354

551, 552, 553, 559
168 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Table 2. Breakdown of Primary Sample by SIC Sample

Group and Company Size—Continued

SIC's included in group

Number of employees

Total 1-19 20-249

554

56

57

58

591 592

596 596

593, 594, 595, 598, 599 60

6162

6364

6566

6770

721, 722, 725, 726, 727, 729.

723, 724

731

732, 733 734

7391, 7397

7392, 7398

7393, 7394, 7395, 7396, 7399

751, 752, 754.. 753 762 764

763, 769

781, 782

783

79

806, 807, 809

801, 802, 803, 804

8184

891

892, 893, 899 40

30

30

32

31323034

3930

30

31

3134

34

30

15 32313026

4141

2926

3130

3324

2434

30

2943

3032

35

33

3435

3140

10

10L0

1111

1

14

1810

10

1110

14

1 1 10

710 11

10

10

L8

1910

5 11

1010

1110

1510

5

191011

10

10

10

1410

2

10

10

1110

10

16

1

1210

10

10

1 1 10

13

105

101010

10

12

119K)

1010

1110

1018

1013

1210

1 I 10

1 1 ibn

n

5

* Twenty railroads had no size listed.
APPENDIX A 169

interviewer asked to speak to either the president or his designated representative. At that time Section I of the questionnaire was administered. The pur- pose of this section was to determine the level of awareness of and attitudes toward, the metric system. Only rarely did the first interview exceed 10

minutes in length.

At the conclusion of the interview the interviewer informed the respondent

that, within 4 or 5 days, he would receive further information regarding the metric system. Also, the interviewer made an appointment to complete the

remainder of the interview which would follow receipt of the informational

materials.

Phase HI.—Immediately following the initial interview, respondents were

mailed a packet containing the following items:

1. A letter which confirmed the appointment for the second interview

and which stressed the confidentiality of the information to be re- quested;

2. A list of the question areas which would probably be covered in the

second interview;

3. An attractive fact sheet which explained the metric system.

Phase IV.—At the time of the appointment respondents were again tele- phoned and Sections II, III, and IV of the questionnaire were administered.

These sections covered present metric usage and the anticipated effects of future U.S. conversion to the metric system. This portion of the interview

generally took from 15 minutes to 1 hour to complete.

Prior to the beginning of the main study the procedure and the questionnaire were pretested among 36 respondents located in Washington, D.C. and

Denver, Colorado. The important procedural changes which resulted from

that pretest were (1) a revision of the introductory letter, (2) the inclusion

of the Time Magazine article, and (3) some revision in the explanatory materials. Some duplication of interviews is known to have occurred both between

the Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing Surveys, and between industry

groups in the nonmanufacturing survey alone. Large corporations usually

have several different kinds of activities and, since these are represented in Social Security files by separate units, the total company may have numerous

listings in the SSA files. Although the basic activity is often manufacturing, an entire family of other activities may have been added to perform services

for the central industry. For example, an automobile manufacturer may own

raw materials producing units, parts fabrication and assembly plants, a distri- bution and transport system for the finished products, marketing services,

schools for mechanics, and other nomanufacturing peripheral activities. Many

of these will be listed under separate SIC numbers.

Other kinds of large organizations may have no central core of manufacturing but nonetheless have a complete line of activities from production to consumer. A chain of food stores may own farms, hatcheries, canneries, deep

freeze plants, trucking lines, merchandising divisions, building design groups,

training schools for managers, etc., all as part of the basic retail food market
170 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

business. Again, each of these units may be listed separately in Social Security Administration Files under separate SIC numbers.

To avoid as much duplication as possible, all interviewing was carried out

with a spokesman at the Central Corporation offices who had been designated as representative for the entire company. In many cases the headquarters office issued a directive instructing subsidiary units that if calls were re- ceived relative to the metric survey, they were to be referred to the general

headquarters for reply. Because communication is always somewhat less than

perfect, however, some organizations did give more than one interview, most

of which were weeded out later in the course of editing final questionnaires. In those cases where multiple interviews were not detected, the representative

had at least been instructed to speak from the point of view of his own

local, relatively independent activities.

C. SELECTION OF INTERVIEWING LOCATIONS

The large number of interviews, both initial and follow-up, in addition to the wide geographic dispersion of the sample, dictated the use of WATS

(Wide Area Telephone Service) lines. In order to minimize the costs of such

lines, three interviewing locations were established. Since a priori, subjective judgment indicated that roughly 40 percent of the sample would be located on the East Coast, an office was opened in Washington, D.C. and five WATS lines were installed there. The Western portion

of the U.S. was covered from the Denver office of Bickert, Browne, Coddington, and Associates.

Preliminary estimates indicated that approximately 25 percent of the sample might be found west of the Great Plains Area. Therefore, three WATS

lines were installed in Denver. A third interviewing location was established in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in order to fill the gap in coverage between the East and West Coasts. An inter- viewing service, Research Data Corporation, was utilized at that location. Although it was initially calculated that 35 percent of the sample might be lo- cated in the Midwest, it was estimated that approximately 10 percent of the Midwest could be interviewed from the Denver and Washington locations. For that reason only two WATS lines were installed in the Cedar Rapids

office. Unfortunately, slightly more than halfway through the study the Cedar

Rapids firm encountered internal problems which prevented them from completing the last 325 interviews. These interviews were then allocated to the two remaining interviewing locations.

D. SELECTION AND TRAINING OF INTERVIEWERS

Although the ability of the interviewers to obtain and complete the inter- views was consistently high, the method of selecting interviewers differed from

location to location. In Washington eight of the 1 1 interviewers used throughout the project were either senior law students or recent law school graduates.

All but two of the interviewers were males. The Cedar Rapids staff consisted
APPENDIX A 171

of five professional market research interviewers, all women. The Denver in- terviewing staff had little homogeneity. Three of the 12 interviewers had

prior market research experience. Nine of the 12 were women.

All interviewers used on the project were trained by supervisors from

Bickert, Browne, Coddington & Associates. The first 10 days of interviewing

in each location were monitored and suggestions given regarding the technique

of obtaining the interview and the use of the questionnaires. Later in the

project when it became necessary to hire new interviewers, they first spent

3 to 4 hours listening to other interviews on the telephone, in addition to re- ceiving the standard briefing by the supervisor. Throughout the project indi- vidual telephone conversations were randomly monitored. In addition, each

location had a supervisor who checked interviews and questionnaires and who

was present to solve procedural problems as they arose. The local supervisor was also responsible for editing all completed questionnaires.

E. REPLACEMENT OF INTERVIEWS

Initially it was estimated that replacement of sample members would occur

only when refusals were encountered. However, the primary sample contained a much larger number of incorrect or inadequate listings than was anticipated. Whereas the total refusal rate was only 10 percent3 of the 2,945

firms actually contacted in the course of the study, another 13 percent of the sample had to be replaced for other reasons. Often the local telephone operators had no knowledge of the firm or its telephone number. Eleven percent of

the total sample fell into that category. In those instances where legitimate telephone numbers could be obtained

at least six attempts were made to contact a firm before it was replaced.

With some firms, particularly those in the construction industry, as many as 12 callbacks were made to secure the interview. A complete listing of refusals and other replacement reasons by SIC group will be found in table 3 below.

When it was necessary to replace an organization in the primary sample,

the selection priorities were as follows

1. Replace with a firm having the identical four-digit SIC number and

size characteristics.

2. If the criteria in (1) could not be met, replace with a firm in the same SIC sample group (i.e., one of the 87 such groups) and of the same size category.

3. If the criteria in (2) could not be met, replace with a firm in the same SIC group, but differing in size.

4. If it was impossible to fulfill any of the above priorities, the firm was

dropped from the sample.

In each replacement situation, if there were two or more replacement possibilities, the choice was made on a random basis.

3 Nine percent refused to cooperate on the initial contact, while one percent of the refusals occurred in attempting to secure the follow-up interview.
172 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Table 3. Recount of Reasons for Replacing Sample Units

Number

Total refusals (On initial contact) (On follow-up)

300

(266)

(34) 314

7164

No listing of telephone

Duplicates Other

Total 749

F. INTERVIEWING SCHEDULE

The performance periods for the three locations were as follows

Washington, D.C.: August 17-October 14

Cedar Rapids: August 17-September 25

Denver : August 20-October 22

The necessity of cutting off the interviewing so that tabulation could begin

resulted in the cancellation of 62 follow-up interviews for which initial contacts had been made.

G. CODING AND TABULATION

Although many of the questions were pre-coded by virtue of the fact that they required a simple yes-no choice, a number of questions were open-end

and thus required the construction of coding categories. To attain that end

300 questionnaires were hand-tallied on the open-end questions. Similar re- sponses were grouped and codes were developed.

Each section of the questionnaire was coded so it could be keypunched on

one standard IBM card. The existence of two alternative forms for section II required the establishment of two codes and cards for that section. Therefore,

although a total of five codes was developed, the responses to each questionnaire were contained on four cards. All of the coding was done by individuals who had also conducted inter- views. Each coder was assigned one section of the questionnaire to code.

Prior to keypunching each questionnaire was checked for accuracy by the coding supervisor.

The tabulation of questionnaire responses was conducted by Control Data

Corporation, utilizing its QUESTAIRE General Questionnaire Analysis Sys- tem. Each question, in addition to its single tabulation, was cross-tabulated

by (1) SIC sample group and (2) size of firm. Also, certain questions in Section IV were cross-tabulated by (1) suggested changeover time period

and (2) gross sales.
APPENDIX A 173

H. RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWING

The number of interviews, in which all four sections were completed, to- taled 2,563. In addition, 11 contacts were made for which no follow-up

interviews were conducted, as the sample cells for those SIC groups had al- ready reached the quota. At the completion of the interviewing, 64 more contacts had been completed, for which no follow-up interviews were conducted.

The final number of full interviews obtained represented 90 percent of the primary sample of 2,868. However, contacts or attempted contacts were made with 3,559 firms. All SIC sample groups were well represented in the final compilation

(Table 4). The lowest representation in any sample group was 57 percent

(Sample Group No. 10). Better than 80 percent representation was obtained

in 72 of the 87 SIC groups. The other sampling criterion, size of firm, was nearly identical in proportion to the sizes specified in the primary sample (table 5). A chi-square test indicated no statistically significant difference in levels of firm size between

the primary and obtained samples.

Tabie 4. Completed Interviews—By SIC Sample Group

SIC Number in Number of Percentage of sample group primary sample interviews obtained primary sample

interviewed

No answer 0 8

1 90 70 77

2 33 29 88

3 27 19 70

4 32 23 72

5 30 29 97

6 31 27 87

7 31 29 94

8 46 41 89

9 30 35 117

10 30 17 57

11 30 30 100

12 36 31 86

13 33 31 94

14 32 27 84

15 36 30 83

16 41 32 78

17 31 28 90

18 30 27 90

19 30 27 90

20 30 30 100

21 30 33 110 22 30 26 87 23 30 28 93 24 30 24 80

25 31 27 87 26 30 25 83

441-628 0-71 — 13
174 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Table 4. Completed Interviews—By SIC Sample Group

Continued

SIC Number in Number of Percentage of sample group primary sample interviews obtained primary sample

interviewed

27 63 64 102 28 30 31 103 29 33 30 91 30 31 30 97

31 30 28 93

32 34 32 94

33 33 28 85 34 30 29 97

35 31 29 94

36 41 34 83 37 39 39 100

38 32 27 84

39 32 28 88 40 32 30 94

41 30 30 100 42 31 27 87 43 32 26 81 44 31 35 113 45 30 28 93 46 33 30 91 47 30 28 93 48 30 31 103 49 32 30 94

50 31 30 97

51 32 34 106

52 30 22 73

53 34 31 91 54 39 33 85

55 30 34 113 56 30 28 93

57 31 29 94

58 31 35 113 59 34 32 94 60 34 30 88

61 30 22 73 62 15 10 67

63 32 30 94

64 31 26 84

"3 1 J I 66 26 19 73 67 41 37 90

68 41 26 63 69 29 27 93 70 26 24 92

71 31 31 100 72 30 24 80

73 33 29 88 74 24 24 100
APPENDIX A 175

Table 4. Completed Interviews—By SIC Sample Group

Continued

SIC Nnmhpr • "I'liSl'VJ ill in Nnmhpr of Pprppnffi PP nf nrimarv JJlIllI&l V ^amnlf Sail 1 1 ' 1

ltitprvipu/^ 1 I l I C, 1 VltWo ohta Im HalinpH ! ILLI nrimarv mnlp

unci VltWvU

OAZ4 yo

Ifk 1A Zj /4 11 Z4 oU

78 29 21 72

79 43 26 6(1 80 30 21 70

81 32 31 97

82 35 26 74

83 33 31 94

84 34 32 94

85 35 31 89 86 31 31 100

87 40 43 108

Table 5. Completed Interviews—By Size of Firms

Number in primary sample Number of interviews obtained

Size of firm

Number Percent Number Percent

1-19 980 34.2 851 33.2 20-249 958 33.4 863 33.7 250 or More 910 31.8 849 33.1 No answer 16 0.6

Total 2,864 2,563
Appendix B

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I—INTRODUCTION AND

IDENTIFICATION

Identification of Spokesman.—Questions were usually (82% ) answered by

high-level managers in all employer size groups. Previous Knowledge of Metric.—Three quarters of the respondents had

heard or read something about possible metric conversion before contacted, but more large companies had heard of it than small ones. Those in

Utilities, Wholesale Trade, Real Estate, and Communication were most often informed, those in Agriculture least frequendy aware of possible changeover; news about metrication had come most often through the newspapers and

trade journals; TV and radio were hardly mentioned.

Explanation of Metric System.—Nearly 3A of the population gave an adequate definition of the metric system before receiving any information on the

subject; Large company spokesmen were most knowledgeable, more small

company spokesmen said "Don't Know".

Prior Use of Metric.—Over half of those interviewed had used the metric

system at some time; more large firm spokesmen than small had used it; the metric system had been most frequently used in school, at work, and in for- eign travel. Attitude Toward Metric.—When asked about advantages and disadvantages of the metric system before receiving any materials, spokesmen said

that the greatest advantage to metric measurement was its ease of use; the

greatest disadvantage, the expense and difficulty of conversion to a new

system; 51 percent of the total sample of respondents indicated no particular concern at the prospect of national adoption of the metric system; 33 percent

mentioned some adverse aspect of conversion.

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION II—CURRENT USE OF

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS IN COMPANY OUTPUTS

Current Usage of Metric Measurements in Outputs.—Questionnaire Form

A—product-related firms; Questionnaire Form B—service-related firms. Seventy-four percent of all respondents listed a service as one of their organi176
APPENDIX B 177

zation's major activities; 40 percent listed a product-related activity; some

listed both.

Use of Measurement Units in Sales Activities.—Prices are more frequently

quoted on length, area or volume (53%) than on weight, temperature or thermal content (36% ); the Construction industry dealt most frequently with

length, area or volume; Mining most often with weight, temperature or ther- mal content; Finance and Insurance rarely quoted prices for any type of

physical dimension.

Metric Measurements in Sales Activities.—About 8 percent of the firms

interviewed already made some use of metric measurements to describe products or quote prices; about 1 percent used metric in all their sales-related measurements; length /weight/volume were more often measured metrically

than temperature; Wholesale Trade, Transportation, Retail Trade,

Forestry/Fisheries, and Mining most often indicated use of metric measure- ments in sales; Communications was the only industry with no use of the metric system in this area. Metric Engineering Standards in Sales.—Some use of metric engineering

standards, either alone or in combination with U.S. standards, occurred in connection with selling products—about 1 1 percent of the respondents

claimed this kind of metric usage; Utilities was the only industry making

appreciable use of metric standards (16% ); 6 percent of the Mining industry

said both U.S. and metric standards were used.

Packaging.—Packages are rarely described in metric units alone, but 7 percent of the sample labeled packages with both U.S. and metric units. Foreign Licensees/Subsidiaries

—Firms with foreign licensees or subsidiaries (12% total sample) said they usually used the measurement system of

the country in which those auxiliaries were located—occasionally some units produced abroad were mixed U.S. and metric dimensions. In general, measurement considerations had no effect on the decisions to operate licensees or

subsidiaries in foreign countries. Imports to U.S. —The majority thought that the sales of foreign goods in the U.S. were not affected by the measurement system used in production;

only 12 percent felt sales of imported goods had been affected; Wholesale

and Retail Trade had the highest percentages which felt sales of foreign

goods had not been affected by measurement units or standards used. Exports.—About 1 1 percent of the respondent organizations exported

goods to foreign countries; the Wholesale Trade, Mining, Agriculture and

Forestry/Fisheries industries most frequently reported such commerce. Measurement Units Used by Exporters.—The majority of the exporters used

U.S. measurement units to describe their goods but about 32 percent of the exporter group used metric measurement at least part of the time; large

exporting firms accommodated to foreign measurements more often than

small ones did; the industry groups that least often changed units for exports were Agriculture and Retail Trade. Mining and Wholesale Trade most often

changed at least part of the time. A majority of firms that changed units for exports reported no problems in changing measurement descriptions; but

most did convert the measurements rather than using both systems simultane-
178 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

ously. Only 9 percent of the exporters felt that their volume of export sales was affected by the measurement units used to describe products.

Engineering Standards for Exports.—Of the exporters, about 16 percent

used different engineering standards for goods sent abroad but the majority

used U.S. standards—sometimes changing the descriptive terminology. The

chief reasons for changing the dimension descriptors were that the destination

country required it and customers there disliked having to make their own

conversions; competition with locally produced goods was easier if the measurements were in metric units. About 6 percent of the exporters said they felt their export sales were affected by the engineering standards used. Foreign Competition in U.S.—About half of the product-related companies said their U.S. markets were shared by foreign firms; this foreign competition was acknowledged by more large companies than small; organizations

in the distributive industries most often said they were affected. A majority of imported goods were said not to conform to U.S. measurement units and/or

standards but were those used in the country of origin.

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION III—CURRENT USE OF

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS IN COMPANY INPUTS

Use of Metric-Described Items.—Sixteen percent of the sample population

said they were making significant use of equipment, supplies or components

described in metric units; more large than small or medium firms used such

items; over twice as many of these items were labeled in metric units only as were described in both systems; Forestry/Fisheries, Services, Utilities, Communication, Wholesale Trade, and Mining were the largest users of such

items. More than 89 percent of all firms which used any metric-described

item used at least one item classified as equipment.

Use of Metric-Designed Items.—Seven percent of the total population said

they used equipment, tools, components or supplies which were designed to metric engineering standards—again largest firms were more likely to use

metric-designed items; Forestry/Fisheries, Mining, and Services made greatest use of those equipment, supplies, or components.

Sources of Metric Goods.—Of those companies (17% of sample) using

metric-described and/or metric-designed goods in company operations, 28

percent said such items were manufactured in the U.S., 25 percent imported

them and 15 percent bought them in both markets. Advantages listed for the use of these metric-described/designed articles were concerned with the con- venience of the measurement system itself—easier to use, etc.,—but disadvantages were pointed at the difficulties of adopting the system—conversion,

obtaining parts, educating employees, etc.; nearly twice as many users of

"metric" articles cited advantages as cited disadvantages.

Measurement as a Tool.—Measurement as a tool in their businesses was

rated as more important by large organizations than small and was given

priority rating by Construction, Real Estate, and Utilities.
APPENDIX B 179

Present Usage of Metric.—About 20 percent of the total sample said the metric system was used "sometimes" in company operations but only 0.4

percent of all respondents used the metric system in all measurement operations. Twenty-three percent of large companies, 15 percent of medium companies, and 13 percent of small companies used "some" metric measurements

in doing business. Communications and Forestry/Fisheries used metric most

often (32% and 26%).

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION IV—FUTURE MEASUREMENT

Voluntary Increase in Metric Usage.—Not many industries expected to increase their usage of metric measurement "on their own"—about 6 percent

said they expected to; about 10 percent more added that they would if the whole U.S. did; Forestry/Fisheries, Wholesale Trade, and Communication

had more firms with this intention; about 6 percent of the total sample said

they expected to increase use of metric measurement "on their own" whether

the rest of the country did or not. Special interest groups which were, per- haps, closer to foreign trade had significantly higher percentages of establish- ments intending to increase their own usage of metric measurement—exporters 12 percent; having foreign licensees or subsidiaries 13 percent; and

currently using metric-described/designed goods or equipment 1 7 percent.

Why Increase "On Own."—The 6% thought that increased metric

usage would imprope the quality of their outputs, ease international commerce and (for a very few) help meet foreign competition.

Why Not Increase "On Own".—Of the reasons given for no voluntarily

increased usage of metric measurement given by 83 percent of the total sample, about 41 percent had to do with relationships with others—industry

standards, government requirements, no customer demand, suppliers deter- mine it, etc.; less than 9 percent were concerned with the organization's own

determinations—do not wish to change our equipment, too difficult to change, etc.

// Suppliers Increase Metric.—More than 75 percent of the total sample

said "Don't Know" or "No Answer" when asked how they would be affected

if suppliers increased their use of metric descriptions or standards.

Inventory Problems.—If possible conversion to the metric system were on

a voluntary, industry-wide basis, relatively few spokesmen (36%) said they

would expect inventory problems; More spokesmen in the Utilities (67%),

Wholesale Trade (50%) and Forestry/Fisheries (47%) firms anticipated

inventory problems; nearly twice as many large firms as small said they

would expect problems.

Possible Government Action.—A second possible method of national

conversion to the metric system is through government action; 50 percent

favored government action, 37 percent no government action, and 13 percent

said "Don't Know/No Answer." The Agriculture and Construction industries
180 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

were least often in favor of government action. More large firms (59%)

favored government action than medium (50%) or small (40%); of those

who favored government action, 45 percent preferred a "mandatory national

program;" 38 percent suggested a national educational program.

Assume a National Program.—Respondents had received via mail a list of

8 characteristics that might guide a possible national metrication program;

these assumptions formed the basis for the following answers: National Time Period.—When asked to suggest a "reasonable" time period

for a planned national program of metrication, a 6 to 10 year conversion

program was said to be the most satisfactory period by 42 percent of all respondents; About 70 percent of the population named a time period of 10

years or less; Differences between different sized companies were small; Majorities in every industry suggested a time period of 10 years or less. Industry Time Period.-—For a "reasonable" time period for a changeover

within their own industries, respondents mostly suggested a time period

shorter than the 6 to 10 years specified for the nation; more small and

medium sized organizations than large ones suggested time periods of "immediately" and "1-2 Years"; the response for a changeover within their own

industry as suggested by the greatest percentages in each industry

Percent Percent Percent Percent Immediately of 1-2 Years of 3-5 Years of 6-10 Years of

indus. indus. indus. indus.

Finance 46 Forestry/Fisheries 29 Communication. . 28 Utilities 31 Insurance 45 Transportation .

. . 22 Construction 25 Wholesale Trade. 21 Agriculture 41 Communication. . 28

Services 40 Construction 25 Real Estate 34 Forestry/

Fisheries 32

Retail Trade .... 29 (See discussion for Q. IV—9 or Tables

Transportation .22 89A, B, C for full details.)

Never!—Less than 3 percent said the country should never change its measurement system; About 3 percent of every industry except

Forestry/Fisheries, Communications, Utilities, and Real Estate gave this response. Advantages to Change.—About half of all respondents were unable to suggest any advantages to their organizations if metrication were to take

place during the time period they had suggested; more large firms than small

or medium were able to suggest advantages; but the response categories were

too scattered to permit definitive restatement here. Disadvantages to Change.—General conversion expense and retraining of

employees were the disadvantages most often listed for change to the metric

system, with large companies mentioning them more often than small ones; about 45 percent of the sample population could cite no disadvantage to a changeover which would take place during the time period they had suggested; Construction listed "general conversion" and "retraining" most often.
APPENDIX B 181

U.S. Competition.—Over 92 percent of all respondents thought that conversion to metric would have no effect on their position relative to their U.S.

competitors; of the 3 percent who saw their competitive positions affected, the effects mentioned were unfavorable; small and medium sized firms mentioned that smaller organizations would be hurt more often than large firms.

Effect on $ Sales.—Of those who thought the 10-year changeover period

might affect their annual dollar sales (6%), most expected the change to increase their sales by from 0.5 to 25 percent; small employers more often

expected to gain by conversion than large organizations did; more representatives within Wholesale Trade (10%) and Retail Trade (7%) thought their annual dollar sales would be affected.

Effect on Export Sales.—Less than 1 percent of all those surveyed, (but

about 9% of the exporters), thought annual export sales would be affected by a 10-year metrication program; most expected increases; Wholesale Trade

and Services most often expected increased export sales.

Effect on Costs.—Fifty six percent of the total sample expected no change

in costs of operation as a result of a 10-year planned changeover time; many

more large firms (50% ) did expect a change in costs than medium (41%)

or small firms (28%); Industry groups in which majorities of firms expected

costs to change were Utilities (61%), Wholesale Trade (53%), and Mining

(52%). Of those who did expect an increase in costs, 62 percent expected

costs to increase, 5 percent expected costs to decrease, and more than 30

percent could state neither the direction nor the magnitude of anticipated

change. In terms of the total sample of firms, 24 percent expected increased

costs, 2 percent expected decreased costs, 13 percent expected costs to change but could not state magnitude or direction, and 56 percent thought

that costs would not be affected by a nationally planned 10-year changeover.

Expected Percent Increase in Costs.—About half of those who predicted

that costs would increase with nationally planned metrication said that the

increase would amount to between 0.5 percent and 5 percent of their annual

dollar costs spread over a number of years; only about 7 percent said the change in costs would affect their companies more than 10 years. About 18

percent of those who expected an increase in costs, predicted an increase of

10 percent or more of their annual dollar costs spread over a number of

years. Most respondents said the effect would last 8-10 years. Only those

respondents who expected an increase of more than 25 percent of annual

costs had appreciable numbers who expected the effect to extend more than

10 years. Reason for Cost Changes.—"Labor" was named most frequently as the reason for increased or decreased costs associated with conversion. Construction anticipated the most problem with labor costs. Among organizations

with less than $1 billion in annual sales, it was most frequently anticipated

that labor would be the chief factor in any change in costs due to metrication; in companies with over $1 billion in sales, equipment was more often

named as the source of greatest expense. Costs by Industry.—Those industries in which respondents most frequently
182 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

anticipated a change in costs with a nationally planned 10-year changeover were Utilities, Wholesale Trade, Mining and Construction. Of those predicting a change in costs: Those with highest percentages predicting increases in costs were Communication, Utilities, Construction, Wholesale Trade, and

Mining; those with the highest percentages predicting decreases in costs were

Insurance, Real Estate, Wholesale Trade, Utilities, and Services. In all industries except Insurance, more than one quarter of those who expected costs to change could not predict the magnitude or direction of the change.

Costs to be Passed on by a Few.—More large firms would probably add

any conversion costs to their selling prices than would small companies; but

in every industry a decided majority said changeover would have no effect on

the selling prices of their goods; only about half as many firms expected to change their selling prices as expected costs would change either up or down.

Should a rise in selling price occur, a majority of those expecting one

thought it probably would be no higher than any increase in their operating

costs (0.5 percent yer year during the period of changeover). Utilities, Construction, Wholesale Trade and Forestry/Fisheries most often expected to pass any increased costs on to the consumer.

Retraining.—More large employers expected to have to retrain some

employees than did small firms:

Size of firm Percent expecting

to retrain

Small or 1-19 employees 49 Medium or 20-249 63 Large or 250+ 70

Total 61

In only Finance, Agriculture and Communications did majorities not expect

to have to do retraining. Percent Employees Retrained.—Of those who said some retraining would

be necessary, estimates of percentages of employees needing retraining

ranged from less than 1 percent to 100 percent; with large firms estimating

smaller percentages generally and smaller firms estimating higher percentages.

The Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Transportation, and Utilities industries had the highest percentages of firms expecting to retrain all employees. More

Finance and Agriculture and Communications predicted no retraining.

Cost of Retraining.—Estimates of probable cost to retrain an employee

ranged from $1 to over $1,000 but 56 percent said they really didn't have

any idea. Those willing to complete the conversion program in the shortest periods of time apparently expected to have to do the least retraining.

Attitudes Toward Increased Metric Usage.—Company attitudes toward

increased metric usage in company operations were:
APPENDIX B 183

Percent of

total sample

Strongly for Mildly for Neutral

Mildly against

Strongly against Don't Know/No Answer

13

1743

12140.7

Those in the "Neutral" category frequently indicated that although they knew

costs would be involved in converting to metric measurement, they were not

willing to stand against a trend that might possibly improve economic position. Spokesmen for Construction and Agriculture had the only pluralities

opposed to change within their own operations:

For Against

Construction 24 37 Agriculture 23 28

Attitudes oj Special Subgroups.—Exporters, owners of Foreign

licensees/subsidiaries, and current users of metric-described/designed equipment, supplies or components were all more favorable toward use of metric

in their own operations than was the total population:

Percent strongly or mildly

Group for increased metric usage

in company operations

Total population 30

Exporters 38

Licensees/subsidiaries 36 Current metric users 53

Metric Measurement for the Nation.—A substantial majority of the sample

said they thought increased usage of metric measurement was in the best national interest:
184 NONMANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Employer Size:

Small Medium Large Total

In best interests of U.S 52 61 72 61 Not in best interests 27 23 15 22 Don't Know/No Answer 20 16 12 16

A majority in all industries supported the idea that metrication was best for

the nation as a whole. Again the special subpopulation groups expressed the

total population opinion with greater intensity:

Percent believing increased Group metric usage in best

interests of U.S.

Total population 61 Exporters 70

Licensees/subsidiaries 74 Current metric users 79

If national conversion to the metric system were found to be in the best

interests of the county, the kind of changeover programs preferred would be:

Employer size

Small Medium Large Total

Mandatory national 57 63 67 62 Voluntary national 23 24 26 24 Voluntary only, no national program 12 7 4 8

All industries had a majority in favor of a mandatory national program.

In Summary.—A majority of the nonmanufacturing industries spokesmen

whose answers have been analyzed in this report have said: conversion to the use of metric measurement would cost us something and be enough inconvenience that we won't change unless the whole country does. But—we

believe such a change is in the best interests of the nation and we will go

along with it, but everybody should make the conversion and that means a coordinated national program, preferably "mandatory."
FORM NBS-114A (1-71) U.S. dept. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 2. Gov't Accession BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA NBS-SP-345-5 No- SHEET

3. Recipient's Accession No.

A TTT I C A Mn CFIRTITI T7 111 Lt AINU oU nl!i Lt

U.S. Metric Study Interim Report:

Nonmanufacturing Businesses

5. Publication Date July 19 71

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) Dr. June R. Cornog, Elaine D. Bunten8. Performing Organization

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Proiect/Task/Work Unit No. 4063129

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This publication, prepared pursuant to the U.S. Metric Study Act,

reports on the experiences and views of non-manufacturing businesses

with regard to metric usage and its increase. The study is based on

a survey of more than 2500 companies and firms primarily involved in:

agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, construction, transportation,

communications, utilities, whole sale/re tail trade (including exporters/

importers), finance, insurance, real estate or services. Information

was obtained on: past or present experience with use of the metric

system (including perceived advantages and disadvantages thereof),

attitudes toward future metrication in a world of increasing metric

usage (including preferred U.S. policy regarding), and estimated cost impacts and benefits which would be attendant to a national metrication

program.

17. key words (Alphabetical order, separated by semicoions)international System of Units; metric conversion; metric system; metric usage; metrication; metrication, attitudes toward; metrication, costs and benefits of; metrication, impact of; nonmanufacturing businesses; SI; MENT m UNLIMITED.

I I FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

200

22. Price $1.50

USCOMM-DC 66244-P71

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 0—441-628