BRITAIN TO "GO METRIC” STIMULANT TO INDUSTRY AND SHOCK TO INSULARITY

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30768, 4 June 1965, Page 12

BRITAIN TO "GO METRIC” STIMULANT TO INDUSTRY AND SHOCK TO INSULARITY

(By

GEOFFREY OWEN.

Industrial Editor of the Financial Times "/

I Reprinted from the “Financial Timex" by arrangement 1

A hundred years after the metric system was first made legal I in Britain, moves are afoot to make it the primary system of ■ * measures within the shortest possible period. On behalf of the >ow ment the President of the Board of Trade (Mr Jay) made a decimation of intent along these lines on May 21.

Instead of waiting for the Commonwealth and the United States to make a simultaneous change (or waiting for decimal coinage to come first), the consensus in industry and in Government is that the iinch/pound system will eventj ually have to be replaced, and that the sooner a start is made (towards the metric system, the better for all concerned. (The tentative timetable. ( illustrated here, is based on a (study by the British Standlards Institution in 1962; experts now think that the conversion could be largely com-1 plete at the end of 10 years. Powerful Arguments I Why the urgency? Apart i from the educational advant-1 ages in accelerating the teaching process both at the pri-| mary school and at the uni-i versity level, there are two powerful arguments for “going metric”: it will assist exports and it will facilitate the process of standardisation in British industry. The proportion of the nation’s exports going to metric countries has risen from 40 to 50 per cent in the last ten years; another!

6.5 per cent goes in countries which are in the process of switching to the metric system. These metric and soon-to-he-metric countries contain 80 per cent, of the world’s population. Since India’s decision to go metric will almost certainly be followed by other Commonwealth countries apart from Canada, it will not be long before the ineh/pound system will be confined to Britain and North America; even this partnership is complicated by wide divergencies between the British and American ton and gallon. Although the Americans are reappraising their policy towards the metric system, it may be ten years or so before they make the change. This will create difficulties for tnose industries. notably motors, aircraft and petroleum equipment, in which American standards have traditionally set the pattern. Most exporters will have to work in two systems until the United States falls into line with the rest of the world, but in view of the greater importance and faster growth of the metric markets, includ-

ling the European Common (Market and the developing (countries, the arguments for (going metric no longer ! depend on American action, j A few industries —the (makers of scientific instruintents and photographic equip- ; ment—already work mostly on the metric system. Some others, especially the electrical industry, have been pressing hard for the change: metric standards for certain (electrical products, such as I motors, have already been 1 established. Most industries (accept that a gradual change ( to the metric system will involve no insuperable diffi-] (culties. as long as it is planned on a national basis. ( Change Of Attitude A crucial role will be ( played by the British Stand-j ards Institution; one of the | most significant aspects of thej change will be the new opportunity for this organisation to increase its influence on British industry. A few of the 5.000 British Standards are already available in metric form; some of them are based on international stand-

I ards and can be presented in I either metric or Imperial ( dimensions. But most British (Standards are based on ( purely British requirements and cannot simply be translated into a metric language. A new set of standards will have to replace them; in addition, of course, any new standards that are created for products not now covered by the 8.5.1. will have to be both metric and internationally acceptable. In some cases there may be a German or other foreign standard which can be adopted as a British Standard; in others it will be necessary to draft a new standard which will anticipate an eventual international ■ standard. This involves a complete change of attitude on the part of all those who sit on the innumerable 8.5.1. committees drafting standards. They will be forced to think first of world markets: instead of a parochial concern with domestic requirements, exports will take priority. Alignment with the European standards organisations, and with the International Standards Organisation,

must be sought wherever possible. Too many existing British Standards, such as the | Whitworth and BA. screw (threads, which conflict both with the metric and the | American "Unified" thread, severely handicap exporters. I Some standards are said to be (out of date, or to contain too wide limits for performance and dimensions, or to reflect the conservatism of the users and the excessive caution of the insurance companies, but I the main fault is that they are (out of line with international (requirements. Sometimes it has been possible, as recently (on pressure vessels, to supple(ment an existing standard (with a new one designed primarily for overseas markets, but this can only be a temporary expedient. Promoting Exports The introduction of the metric system will not only inject an export-promoting element into the standards procedure, but it will also put new impetus behind the British Standards Institution itself. This organisation has been trying hard to improve

its efficiency in recent years (management consultants are now at work on it) and within its limited resources it has done an excellent job in promoting the use of British Standards. But it has generally enjoyed a poor image and has received inadequate support from industry. A,substantiai enlargement in its resources will be necessary if it is to provide effective leadership in the adoption of metric standards. The drafting committees will have to be streamlined and better managed, so that the interminable arguments over detail can be resolved more rapidly. An important stimulus to the wider use of the British Standards can come from the Government buying departments and the nationalised industries. By adopting British Standards in their own specifications (and by pressing for the creation of new standards where there are none), they can help to reduce unnecessary variety in ordering. They can also ensure that the British Standards reflect not just a compromise between conflicting interests, but the best engineering practice. The manufacturers, for their part must ensure that the calibre of their representatives on the 8.5.1. committees is adequate; too many firms have tended to regard 8.5.1. work as unimportant. Just as eagerness for a move to the metric system has been growing, however, so the advantages of standardisation in industry are becoming increasingly recognised. Most large firms have standards departments which are concerned to reduce unnecessary variety both in the materials and components which they buy from outside and in the finished products which they make themselves. This internal standardisation, providing longer production runs and savings in overhead costs, can lead to the adoption of similar standards throughout the same industry and hence to the creation of new British Standards. Interchangeable Parts In machine tools, for instance, several manufacturers have developed techniques of using components or sub-assemblies which are interchangeable in a wide range of similar machines* these become the building blocks or “modules” on which unit construction can be based. If industry-wide standards for these modules could be established, this would facilitate the large-scale production of standardised units In the building industry the use of industrialised techniques has stimulated interest in dimensional co-ordination* it is significant that the draft standard now under consideration involves a basic dimension of ten centimetres If this process of standardisation within British industry can be accompanied by the closer alignment of British with international standards the long-term effects on the nation’s export performance could be considerable. Quite apart from the psychological shock to British insularity the economic gains from going metric will far outweigh the cost and inconvenience of the change.