20: The costs and benefits of metrication
Metrication is a fundamental change made with the aim of gaining major benefits. It is rare indeed that substantial benefits can be gained in any field of activity without initial costs. Metrication is no exception. Debates about cost have generated far more heat than light. A number of extravagant guesses have been made, most of them directed to the total cost to the economy. Because sensational statements make news, such guesses hit the headlines and are repeated until in time they come to be treated as official estimates. We cannot emphasise too strongly that there is no official estimate of the total cost of going metric nor of the financial gains to be expected.
It is fanciful to attempt any sort of estimate of the cost of metrication to the economy as a whole. Partly because of the nature of the problem and partly because any attempt to assess the cost of metrication involves taking a view of a very varied collection of future decisions, it is difficult to estimate what future expenditure will be incurred, even within an individual undertaking. The costs of metrication are in many cases inextricably inter- twined with the cost of much wider changes. This would make it impossible, even retrospectively, to determine what proportion of expenditure should be attributed to metrication itself and what to other changes being made at the same time.
Individual undertakings can make approximate estimates of the costs they will incur. Such costs will in most cases not be wholly attributable to metrication alone but it is not important for the individual enterprise to make a precise attribution of these particular costs for budgetary and control purposes. Estimates which we have seen indicate that, with good management, the amount involved in changing to metric production need not be at all daunting. For example, the British Federation of Master Printers has estimated costs in the printing industry of the order of ten shillings to fifteen shillings per head of staff. A planning estimate by a firm manufacturing light engineering products puts the cost at 0.5% per annum of annual turnover for a period of three to four years. An estimate by another engineering firm foresees a cost of a little over 1% of annual turn- over, for a period of about three years.
We do not claim that these estimates are typical; in so diverse a field, nothing could be. But they are responsible estimates made in particular instances. And while there may be cases in which costs will be greater, these estimates do at least serve to suggest that the fears that have been expressed of very high costs of metrication over a very wide area are mistaken.
It is a very different matter to attempt to project such estimates of the cost 20.5 of change, made by individual industrial organisations for planning purposes, so as to construct an estimate of the overall cost to the economy as a whole. Metrication involves an enormous variety of undertakings. There are also wide variations in needs and circumstances as well as in accounting techniques. It is risky to generalise even from one firm to another, let alone
The costs and benefits of metrication
to attempt to extend such generalisations to manufacturing industry as a whole, much less to the national economy.
Those who promote and publicise estimates of overall cost seem to be drawn from those who are opposed to metrication. They have not exposed the basis of their assessment of total cost. Moreover, we know of no attempt to produce a serious estimate of the countervailing benefits, a necessary condition to an economic assessment of the change. The benefits are potentially very large. It is, however, even more difficult to evaluate them and to determine how much is properly attributable to metrication alone and how much to metrication combined with other changes, such as rationalisation, variety reduction and reduction in stock holdings. These changes should bring an all-round increase in efficiency, leading to greater opportunities to expand sales both at home and abroad. We can look for improvements in education at all levels through simplification of mathematical instruction in all its varied applications. Unlike the costs, which are once for all, the benefits continue indefinitely.
Nor is that all. The decision to change to the metric system involves not simply the question of weighing the costs against the benefits and deciding that the latter exceeded the former (although that was the conclusion both of industry and Government). The more significant question is whether the nation truly had an option to stay imperial without suffering serious disadvantages and incurring substantial costs simply as a consequence of resisting change. The answer is clear. The costs of staying imperial in a world which, in this respect, would have left us far behind, are potentially vast, increasing and persisting: British industry would be less efficient; a competitive edge would be lost; and there would be repercussions on the standard of living. We would have burdened ourselves with a continuing handicap.
Fortunately, the die is cast. The task now is not to hold inquests into the possible overall cost of changing or not changing to metric but to ensure that the change is made in ways which extract the greatest possible gains for the economy, by keeping the costs to the minimum and by securing the maximum benefits.
Metrication is a substantial investment in efficiency. It cannot be achieved without cost and we would not suggest otherwise. But we are confident that, given purposeful direction at every level, including Her Majesty's Government, the investment can pay big dividends. This is a challenge, both to management and to the work force. The opportunity must not be wasted.
Our General Information Service
Our task is to make the metric system intelligible, acceptable and familiar throughout the country. The change to metric depends for its success not only on the wisdom of the plans for making the changes but on effective communication with those who will be affected by them. Achieving this communication is primarily the responsibility of the enterprise, the public authority, or the industry responsible for the initiatives. We may need to stir them to make this effort. We have established effective links with others already engaged in promoting metrication. Information campaigns are being planned by Government Departments dealing with areas of their responsibilities in which metrication is particularly significant. The Industrial Training Boards intend to increase their effort. The Trades Union Congress has emphasised the necessity that workpeople should be informed of the changes which will affect them. The Confederation of British Industry is continuing to devote considerable resources to making known the changes which are taking place as are some of the larger Trade Associations. Our responsibility is to give direction to these efforts and to complement them as necessary. A special responsibility is to keep the general public informed of the changes which will affect them.
The most imminent changes are those taking place in the materials industries, in construction, in engineering and in education. It is therefore with these sectors that we are most immediately concerned. The urgent need is to make sure that there is a sufficient exchange of information about what changes there will be and the timing. Those affected, particularly those in industry, must have time to consider how they will be involved and what response they should make to the impending changes. It is not until somewhat later that those industries and services which are of most direct concern to the retailer and the consumer will begin using metric units of weight and measure extensively. It is at this stage that most of our resources will be directed to making sure that the general public is familiar with the pending changes. We are alert to the present need to remove misunderstanding and groundless alarm and to respond promptly to requests from the public generally for information about the changes which are already taking place. For the immediate future, however, our efforts will be concentrated on the industrial scene and on the planning of changes in agriculture.
As in other aspects of our work we have built upon the previous efforts and preparations of others, notably the Ministry of Technology and the British Standards Institution. Our first task was to provide an information service for the press, radio and television organisations and trade associations, as well as for educationalists and the general public. More than a million posters, booklets, leaflets and news releases have been sent out during 1969. We have been greatly encouraged by the interest and co-operation of journalists and broadcasters. Metrication has featured increasingly in a wide range of national and regional newspapers, trade journals and magazines, and in radio and television programmes. As metri- cation gains momentum and as planning gives place to actual changes, this
Our exhibition participation has been built on the preparatory work of the Ministry of Technology. We mounted a touring exhibition in Birmingham, Sheffield and Glasgow. This was designed primarily to give guidance on planning metrication to management in manufacturing industries. It attracted the attention of the press, broadcasters and the general public in all three cities. Modest poster, direct mail and advertising campaigns helped to produce good audiences. Local organisations took the occasion to organise associated seminars, study groups and meetings, which extended the impact. At these exhibitions and at meetings and conferences elsewhere we have done what we could to stimulate and lead discussion on what metrication means and how to set about securing advantage from the change. In all this, we have been greatly encouraged by the initiative shown by industrial organisations.
We have produced three colour films in a series Keys to Metrication, initiated by the Ministry of Technology. In these, as in other aspects of our information work, we have relied greatly on the experience and resources of the Central Office of Information. These first films concentrate on the engineering industries, and are addressed particularly to managers, designers, production engineers and inspectors, who have the main responsibilities for preparing for the changes in these industries. During 1970-71 these films will be extensively promoted. To increase their effectiveness booklets amplifying and supporting the aspects which the films demonstrate are now being prepared.
While the information programme now in hand seems likely to be adequate 21.6 for 1970, we are faced with the need in this year to plan a much more extensive effort for 1971 and 1972, when the metric change will have gathered speed and involvement will be more widespread. We must try to ensure that the industrial changes take place in an environment which is informed and sympathetic. Both employers and trades unions are agreed that the changes in industry cannot be wholly successful if they are divorced from like changes in the day-to-day life away from the work bench. Likewise the tasks of teachers in schools and those engaged in industrial training will be made easier when it is evident that the adoption of metric measurement is not a classroom discipline but a major change affecting every aspect of national life.
The time is past for argument about the merits of the decision to go metric. The decision was in no sense hasty. It was well-considered and supported by lengthy investigation. The immediate need is to maintain momentum and to speed the rate of change. A great deal of preparation has taken place over the last five years and the United Kingdom will be substantially a metric country before 1975.
2 Most of the world is now metric or has already decided to make the change. The United States of America is still considering the pros and cons. There is little doubt that before the end of the seventies the whole world will have decided to adopt the metric system.
The progress achieved in the United Kingdom since 1965 is notable. A great deal of the credit belongs to the British Standards Institution, which has the continuing responsibility for producing metric standards. The timely publication of these standards is essential to the success of the changeover.
4 The Metrication Board has a major role as co-ordinator for the whole complex of metric change. The development of metrication programmes for particular sectors, however, is the responsibility of the appropriate industrial or service organisation. It is here that trade associations and professional institutions have a notable part to play.
We now have a comprehensive picture of the stage reached by the end of 1969. Surveys of the progress to date have not revealed insuperable difficulties but there are some awkward problems. One which is widespread is the timely conversion of weighing machines. To this we are giving special attention.
Metrication is a fundamental change intended to secure major benefits. There have been a number of attempts to put a figure on the total cost of the changeover. This is a subject which attracts those opposed to the decision to go metric. We do not consider it practicable to produce a meaningful estimate of the total cost for the national changeover. The costs of metrication are inseparable from those of the other changes which accompany the adoption of metric units. Wise planning can keep the costs down, but some are inescapable. The costing of the changes is part of the management job within the individual undertaking. When planning and preparation have been thoroughly done, costs can be kept down by making the transition phase as short as practicable. The positive objective is to maximise the benefits which, unlike the costs of the change, will persist.
7 The education system will necessarily have the major responsibility for training the younger generation to become thoroughly familiar with the metric system and its uses. An effective start has been made. We are
« PreviousContinue » |