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 11 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 Classification Manual 1 as: 1 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 variance 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 faceto-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. 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 percent 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 industries were classified into 3 size categories to permit analysis of the impact of metrication on large versus small firms and among various indus tries. 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. 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; 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 presumption 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 distribution of responses by groups and divisions are shown on the following chart. |