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 O 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.

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 measurement 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):

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

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

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 without shift to the U.S. equivalent dimensions. All 13 industries had at least a few metric item users, mostly of equipment.

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.

2 No metric described articles used.

All metric items used are metric described.

TABLES 59-71A & B

Qs. III-2

III-2a

III-2b

III-2c

III-2d

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?

Which articles are designed to metric engineering
standards?

About what percent of your total (METRIC ARTI-
CLE) are designed to metric standards?

Are those (supplies) (components) (equipment)
(tools) which you mentioned designed to strictly
metric standards, or is there dual dimensioning?
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:

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 related to a firm's use, in its U.S. operations, of equipment, supplies, or components designed to metric standards.

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 articles 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 inference 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 invested in equipment or tools:

These relative proportions correspond well to those obtained in the answers to Q. III-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.