I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY BACKGROUND Use of a measurement system based principally on the meter, kilogram and second as fundamental units (technically known as the International System of Units, hereinafter referred to as SI) is well on the way to becoming universal in the world outside the United States. Recognizing this, the U.S. Congress in 1968 passed an Act (Public Law 90-472)1 calling for an investigation of the present and future effects of increasing worldwide and domestic metric usage on various activities in the United States. Of the present major users of the English (our customary) system of measurement, Great Britain and South Africa are in the midst of 10-year national metric conversion efforts, and Canada, Australia and New Zealand have declared national policies of eventual conversion to the SI as their national measurement system. The Congress in the Metric Study Act outlined a comprehensive investigation to cover diverse sectors of our society. This Survey of Federal Government Agencies has fulfilled one aim of the Act by ascertaining the present and expected future impacts of worldwide metrication on all likely affected agencies of the Federal Establishment2 and on the constituent activities of their areas of responsibility in the society at large. The survey also obtained the views of the agencies with regard to the alternative courses of action open to the United States in an increasingly metric world. EFFECTS ON INTERNAL OPERATIONS Fifty-five Federal agencies participated in this Survey. The "effects on agency internal operations" part of the Survey is based on responses from 1 The law, commonly referred to as the Metric Study Act, is included as app. 1 of this report. 2 Except the Department of Defense, which is being covered by a separate study. some 394 individual subunits within 50 of the agencies. It was found that more than one-half of the individual responding entities are already involved with at least some use of SI measurement units, and in some cases with SIbased engineering standards. Such current usage occurs in connection with fields which are largely metric (e.g., electronics, pharmaceuticals), to enhance compatibility with scientific activities, to facilitate international interchange of goods (and of statistics), and to conform to certain U.S. industry practices. Most respondents currently using the SI reported that advantages stemming from their metric usage, such as improved operations, facilitated scientific intercourse, and improved international communications outweigh such disadvantages as lack of employee familiarity with the system and confusion as a consequence of dual usage. In view of the foreseeable trends in worldwide and domestic metric usage, one-fifth of the surveyed subunits expect to make increasing use of the SI in their work, whatever national policy is decided upon. Some respondents said they are being pushed in this direction by suppliers. Others will increase usage of SI in the interest of international communication and cooperation. Some plan to use the metric system more widely, simply for the benefits of easier calculations, reduced errors and the operational improvement that it brings. Fully 43 percent of the 394 subunits do not plan to expand their own use of the metric system, and do anticipate growing measurement-related difficulties. Expected difficulties in the absence of increased adaptation to worldwide metric usage include: confusion due to dual measurement system usage, increased training requirements, more measurement conversions and interfacings between parts designed in the two systems, larger dual inventories, and increasing international communications and cooperation difficulties. A concerted program of U.S. metrication would (1) bring all the advantages of current metric usage listed above, (2) eliminate the disadvantages, once conversion is completed and (3) solve the problems imposed by the worldwide situation. However, there would be certain added costs of operation imposed on Federal agencies by the conversion effort. Even with conversion of measurement units alone, employees already on duty would have to be trained and the general populace familiarized with the new system, measuring instruments converted or replaced, publications revised, legislation involving specified weights or measures amended and some computer programs (e.g., air traffic control) rewritten. With conversion also of engineering standards to a rational SI base, there would be additional expenses for extra standards-developing activity, and for maintaining a degree of dual inventory of parts as long as customary-engineered equipment remains in use. The Survey of Federal Government Agencies sought "best guess" estimates of what added costs might amount to, and what permanent annual savings might accrue after conversion. Although a few areas of uncertainty remain, it is believed that the Survey has obtained a good indication of the expected magnitude of such cost impacts. The annual added cost to the Federal budget (exclusive of the Defense Department) of a 10-year coordinated national metrication effort including revision of engineering stan dards would appear to be on the order of $58 million. For conversion to the metric measurement language only, the 10-year annual cost is estimated as $32.1 million. Put another way, the per capita cost to each U.S. citizen (1970 census figures) for the Federal Establishment (exclusive of the Defense Department) to accomplish its part of a coordinated national metrication effort, including revision of engineering standards, over a 10-year period would appear to total $3 at the outside. After completion of the transition (and indefinitely thereafter) annual dollar savings from complete metrication are expected to amount to $7.4 million (for the language-only conversion, to $4.3 million). Put another way, it would appear that 7 to 8 years of post-transition dollar savings would recover 1 year's transition costs. For reasons discussed in the report, these rates of discount of future benefits are probably high: costs are very likely overstated, and dollar benefits almost certainly understated. In spite of the very real costs that would be involved, 48 of the 50 agencies expect that long-term advantages of a U.S. metric conversion would outweigh disadvantages from their point of view. Thus, it is not too surprising that 39 of the surveyed agencies support a coordinated national effort to increase use of the metric system in the United States. (An additional six agencies reported that they are not appreciably affected by the measurement system or engineering standards in use.) Opposition to coordinated U.S. metrication at the agency level was limited to one agency, which had a majority of responding subunits opposed to the change. Although the estimated costs to the Federal budget for a conversion of measurement units only are substantially less than for a conversion including engineering standards, a number of respondents felt the former move would impose permanent cost increases and operational impairment (due to the confusions of describing "customary" standards and equipment in the metric language), while for them conversion of both units and standards would bring cost decreases and operational improvement. Some respondents stated that conversion of measurement units only would be a less than half-way measure which would not solve the real problems (of equipment and product incompatibilities). Thus, strong feelings were expressed in some agencies that, if we abandon our laissez faire approach to metric usage, we should then go "all the way" and bring our engineering standards into line with the metric measurements. A consensus of the individual responding entities favors 10 years as a reasonable time frame in which conversion of measurement activities in the U.S. to the use of SI units could be substantially completed. "Optimum" transition periods would vary for different kinds of activities. Because of this it would be essential to devise a carefully organized plan for coordination of conversion moves throughout the society. EFFECTS ON AREAS OF NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY The current level of metric system use in this country has already seriously affected two areas of responsibility of the Federal Establishment: the 3 The Social Security Administration in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. functions of the U.S. Coast Guard with respect to shipbuilding (verification of compliance with safety and other standards), and the area of automobile safety. In the latter case the influx of metric-dimensioned foreign vehicles and components is requiring special tools for servicing and special blueprints for safety standards. Slightly over one-third of the 57 agency responses1 in the "area of national responsibility" part of the Survey expect increasing measurement-related problems, which, in the absence of a concerted national metrication effort, will range up to substantial or serious with regard to their area of responsibility. Of these 57 agency respondents, 28 see U.S. metrication facilitating the activities within their areas of responsibility and their interactions therewith, 31 favor increased U.S. metrication (most endorsing a coordinated national program), and only one opposes any national program. CONCLUSION Thus, the Survey of Federal Government Agencies found substantial expectation of increasing problems in the Federal Establishment with continuation of a laissez faire policy toward metrication, and widespread feeling that a coordinated national effort to increase the use of SI measurement units and engineering standards in the U.S. is desirable. A broad consensus of the Federal agencies and responding subunits expect that the long-term advantages of such a move would clearly outweigh any short-term disadvantages, even including the substantial costs that would be involved during the conversion period. * Some agencies were asked for responses on several "areas of national responsibility" and some agencies were not asked for responses. Thus, the number of inputs to this part of the survey does not equate to the overall number of agencies covered. |