THE U.S. METRIC STUDY PLAN

Appendix 3

The Metric Study Act proposes for investigation a set of questions having implications in almost every aspect of our domestic life and conditioning our external behavior in the community of nations.

A nation's measurement usage is both a part of its language and, in a sense, a way of life. It is a special element of the parent language, mostly technical, relating to quantitative expression of our observations of the world around us. Like the rest of the language, it has its idioms, dialects, and semantic problems. In common with its parent language, it finds translation a nuisance and susceptible to error. Moreover, each user believes his language is the best and wishes all others would cooperate by using it. Differences can be tolerated and adjustments made. But this sub-language of measurement has developed, by virtue of its relative simplicity, a unique aspect: It appears feasible for the whole world to use one common sub-language of measurement, and most of the world is gearing up to do just that. One need not dwell upon the well-known advantages of a common language, nor upon the equally well-known problems of changing a lifetime of usage to

a new one.

As a way of life, the consequences of measurement affect us in complex and diverse ways. Measurement usage comes to determine not only the way we communicate among ourselves, but also the sizes or other characteristics of things we make and the recipes or machines we use for making them. On the language or communication side, we deal with thought processes and the spoken or written expressions of them, conveniently summed up in the modern expression, "software." In contrast is the term "hardware," an expression of broad general scope relating to the physical entities we make and use: things such as refrigerators, automobiles, radios, shoes; and materials such as steel, rubber, silicon crystals, candy.

Changing software involves one class of actions, as we have seen. Changing hardware is something else, and involves, for example, changing machines, reorganizing systems, revising engineering practices, or even modifying the levels of safety and performance we may prescribe.

Consequently, when a change in measurement usage is under consideration, it must be made clear whether the change involves software only, hardware only, or both. History is replete with highly emotional and inevitable conflicts arising from such lack of specificity. "Conversion to the metric system" has come to mean change to forms of hardware characteristic of the uses of metric language. Others use the term to mean software changes only and bring upon themselves the wrath of those who fear hardware changes, but might well tolerate a software change. Strict care in this regard is an essential ingredient of a study plan. The Metric Study Act avoids the sometimes inflammatory terms "conversion," and instead uses the expression, "increase in metric usage."

Though not used in the Act, metrication is a convenient term to indicate generally what is under consideration. It means, for purposes of our study, any act tending to increase the use of the metric system (SI), whether it be increased use of metric units or engineering standards based on such units. It should be noted here, too, that the metric system of measurement, like any other language, has its dialects. Hence, unless otherwise specified, whenever there is reference to the "metric system" in our study, we mean the modernized metric system known as "SI," the International System of Units (see the attachment to this appendix for details).

In actual practice, metrication usually involves a mix of changes in language (units) and hardware (engineering standards). Thus, for example, the mix specified for the Metric Study is given in the instructions for questions 12, 13, 14 of the Manufacturing Industry Questionnaire included in appendix 5.

Immediately following passage of the Metric Study Act, implementation of its provisions for public representation and participation began. An Advisory Panel was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce as one means "to permit appropriate participation by representatives of United States industry, science, engineering, and labor, and their associations, in the planning and conduct of the U.S. Metric Study and in the evaluation of the information secured." 15 In addition to this involvement in the study, a comprehensive series of national hearings- conferences was devised to give all relevant sectors of our society an opportunity to participate.

The blueprint for the Metric Study was forged in complete cooperation with the Panel, beginning in September 1969 with its chairman, and continuing on through December 1969, when the final plan was endorsed by the Panel's executive committee. It should be noted that throughout this period there were invaluable contributions by the Panel in its joint effort with the U.S. Metric Study Group to arrive at a workable plan that would lead to worthwhile results. Moreover, the Panel, through its intimate contacts with the various sectors of the society, continues to be an active partner in the data gathering phase.

Formulation of the Study plan began with an interpretation of the general objectives stated in the Act. This led to the construction of a more specific set of undertakings that would yield the desired information:

15 The membership of the Advisory Panel is given in appendix 2.

(1) Identify the impacts upon the U.S. that can be attributed to metrication in the world.

(2) Evaluate these impacts in key sectors of the society.

(3) Determine what adjustments are now taking place in these sectors. (4) On the basis of realistic assumptions, examine feasible courses of action for the U.S., involving no national coordination on the one hand, and a coordinated national program toward metrication on the other.

(5) Evaluate each proposed course of action for its likely future impact upon the relevant sectors of our society and upon our national security and international trade.

(6) Evaluate feasible courses of action not involving metrication (such as an effort to expand the use of U.S. inch-based standards internationally).

In this connection consider carefully

(a) Why among all the major nations of the world has not the U.S. already found it necessary or desirable to metricate?

(b) Is U.S. action other than metrication warranted?

(7) Prepare a report indicating the alternatives considered, the various sectors of the society that were studied, findings and evaluations; and structure the report so that the results can be presented to the political decision makers, executive and legislative, for final resolution.

In short, the interpretation of the Metric Study Act can be characterized thus:

(1) Identify and evaluate impacts upon the U.S. attributable to metrication in the world.

(2) Propose realistic and feasible courses of action for the U.S. to follow, including but not limited to those involving probable concerted metrication on our part.

(3) Identify their probable future impacts and evaluate them similarly. (4) In the search for impacts consider our international activities as well as all relevant domestic sectors.

The resulting Study Plan included a preliminary phase in which likely major impacts were identified, their target sectors designated, some relevant courses of action developed, and their likely impacts estimated. The preliminary phase permitted informed judgments to be made, upon which the main. strategy for the Study could be based. Without this basis, the Study would rapidly have ballooned into a vast undertaking utterly impossible to complete.

The main strategy involves:

(1) Completion of impact determinations begun in the preliminary phase for the purpose of selecting courses of action and identifying likely target sectors.

(2) Investigation and evaluation of costs and benefits, in these target sectors, of the proposed courses of action.

Practical constraints limit the alternative courses of action to a very few and the target sectors to a small but reasonable number. This is in accordance with the intent of the Congress, as expressed in the legislative history of the Metric Study Act.

THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative One is for the government to do nothing, which means in this case, to allow events to develop with no overt formal action to alter the pattern of voluntary adjustments now emerging. As we have seen, this pattern is leading to limited metrication and must be considered as a course of action, certainly feasible, leading to metrication.

Another possibility, but not to be entertained, is to arrange for some mandated action to reverse the trend toward metrication, in favor of a return to more complete use of “customary" hardware and software. Since this would be impractical, to say the least, and would further isolate the United States from the rest of the world, it is believed neither desirable nor worthy of serious attention. In fact, brief preliminary examination of this possibility brought forth no discerning body of opinion in support of such action. At the conclusion of the preliminary phase, therefore, it was dropped from further consideration.

In writing the Metric Bill, the Congress was careful to avoid giving the impression that instantaneous mandatory conversion was contemplated. No nation that has undergone a metric transition has ever accomplished it in that manner. We do not believe that instantaneous mandatory conversion is a policy alternative that requires serious study and therefore have not included this possibility as an alternative to be studied.

Another possibility is for the government to lead in the adoption of a national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: 10 years and "opa change on a national level, i.e., to change according to a coordinated national plan. Two conversion periods merit attention: ten years and "optimum," and these lead to alternatives two and three.

Alternative Two: Consider a coordinated national program of metrication, designed to be completed over a 10-year period. Ten years has been selected arbitrarily, but is the period adopted by the British and Australians as the appropriate timetable for this process. New Zealand has opted for 7 years.

Alternative Three: Consider a coordinated national program scheduled at the "optimum" rate. Since many sectors of the economy are deeply interlocked with respect to materials, components, and software, and each may find a different time scale to be a suboptimization of the total economy, the determination of an "optimum" conversion period is a difficult problem to solve. Accordingly, the study plan requires each affected sector of the economy to try to estimate what would be the optimum time scale for it to convert, on the assumption that other sectors of the economy have made the necessary changes to permit orderly conversion by the sector in question.

The Study seeks quantitative cost information from selected manufac