Dear Euric and All,
Dear Euric and All,
Re: [USMA:27821] Re: spiffy new UKMA web site
> Maybe Pat could explain how Australia did it, as Australia seems to have had
> no real opposition in the sense the UK has.
The following report was written in 1981, based on an earlier report of
1978. This is a reprint from 1995.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
**
Extract from the Final Annual Report (1980-81) of the Metric Conversion
Board
Conversion Rationale and Lessons Learned
In surveying the progress with our metrication from being a country which
exhibited only isolated instances of metric usage in 1970, such as in
Olympic sporting events and the size of photographic films, to a country
which is over 90 per cent metricated in 1981, it is instructive to identify
the key elements in the rationale adopted and the main lessons learned. This
was attempted in the 8th Annual Report (para 2.1 page 8) but has been
revised in the light of three years further experience with the change.
The key elements were:
o unequivocal commitment to Australia's conversion by Federal and state
Governments;
o the Federal Government's decision was based on an all-party unanimous
recommendation following a detailed inquiry by a Select Committee of the
Senate, thereby providing the answer to the inevitable query "Why was the
matter not put to a referendum?" and allowing the Board to get on with
planning and facilitating the change without having to defend the
Government's decision;
o the change was treated as primarily a technical one (which it is) and
was almost wholly free from political disputation; general support for the
decision by industry, commerce, organised labour, professional and trade
associations and local governments; general acceptance that 10 years was an
appropriate conversion period; an explicit statement in the Metric
Conversion Act that the object of the change is ultimately to convert wholly
to metric units, as is necessary if the full benefits of the simplicity and
coherence of the modern metric system (SI) are to accrue; the development of
conversion plans for each sector of activity identified as in need of such a
plan -
- by appointing an MCB Sector Committee of national leaders nominated by
the relevant organisations and drawn from all over Australia,
- by encouraging each Sector Committee to develop a draft program by
consensus on the basis, hopefully, of optimising the change and ensuring it
has associated with it the available benefits such as rationalisations and
other economies,
- by critical assessment of proposed conversion plans by as many as
possible of those likely to be directly or indirectly affected by them,
- by reviewing all comments and giving wide publicity to the agreed plan
and, if considered appropriate, by including the plan in a brochure which
provides other relevant conversion details;
o support for the voluntarily agreed plans in all possible ways, including
mandatory provisions where appropriate through the amendment of legislation,
technical standards and codes of practice and the commitment of large
organisations to act as "front runners" in the implementation of conversion
programs;
o the Board's committees were advised and serviced by a very competent and
dedicated technical secretariat whose responsibilities included the
dissemination of information, monitoring the implementation of progress and
early identification and research into potential problem areas;
o in the belief that a knowledge of metrics would only come to the public
through the experience of using or being exposed to the metric system and
that the offer of instruction in the system or an attempt to provide such
instruction through paid advertising would be largely wasted, the Board's
aim was to establish metric manifestations wherever possible and in
association with these to provide assistance with their assimilation;
o learning by experience is hindered rather than helped by the use of
equivalent metric - imperial quantity statements and accordingly dual
statements were restricted to "need to know" situations; and
o effective communication is critical if fear of the unknown is to be
allayed and intelligent cooperation obtained in the implementation of
conversion plans.
Some of the lessons learned in giving effect to the above principles were:
o consensus planning presupposes effective and continuing representation
of all significant interests. The enthusiasm engendered by involvement in
metrication made this possible and resulted in very few indeed of the
thousands of conclusions reached by the Board's committees without vote,
being challenged or upset;
o a sector program which has the support of national leaders will
generally be accepted by their peers and will usually be implemented with
goodwill in the spirit in which it was developed and so needs only to be in
general terms with sufficient flexibility to take care of unforeseen
contingencies;
o because a sector conversion usually occurs over an extended period, with
some changing early and some late, the need for careful coordination of
plans between related sectors is usually minimal so that planning for
simultaneous conversions is unlikely to cause problems;
o early conversion of technical standards, i.e. before the event, although
contrary to the usual practice in developing a standard, was a most
important element in many conversions;
o target dates ("M days") for a key element of a conversion program helped
to marshal and coordinate support for the implementation of that program;
o the optimum change was usually a quick one;
o changes should not be made the occasion to increase price rates or to
make the relevant conditions more severe;
o while the concept of a wholly voluntary change may appear attractive, in
a fiercely competitive situation this will engender confusion and
disadvantage both to traders and customers by prolonging unduly the period
during which imperial and metric units are used. In such cases a mandatory
change, after suitable preparation, resulted in orderly trading almost
overnight to the satisfaction of all;
o resistance to the metric change is mostly due to fear of the unknown.
Few realised it could be a simple, non-traumatic experience so that, with
the general public, support for the change can only be expected after it has
been experienced, as was the case with the adoption of decimal currency;
o clear guidance should be available at short notice if a problem arises
in program implementation. As far as possible fruitless disputation on
trivial issues should be avoided; costs did not prove to be a significant
factor in the implementation of conversion programs. Very rarely did they
even receive mention, indeed reports of ongoing savings have outnumbered
reports of costs;
o it is important to maintain the momentum of the change, which required
that planned changes be not impeded unnecessarily by delays in amending the
relevant regulatory provisions, codes of practice etc., as happened in some
cases;
o opposition to the change, often on spurious grounds, must be expected
and, if answered by a soundly based response of patent credibility, can
often serve the useful purpose of calling attention to the planned changes.
The Board, its political masters and its "family" of committee members must
be resolute in the face of such ill-founded opposition;
o familiarity with metric manifestations, such as metres for sporting
events, kilograms for packaged goods and litres for petrol, does not help
greatly with the application of the same units to other circumstances, such
as metres for carpets, kilograms for potatoes or litres for weedicides;
o the ability to "think metric" generally only develops slowly, even
though the individual may be thinking in metric units at work. Our wholly
metric education system will doubtless be the principal factor in effecting
this;
o the "tail" of conversion is inevitably a long one and will consist in
the main of conversions which are "difficult", some because of their long
time scale, others because they lack specific motivation and yet others
because they represent islands of resistance to the change or those who
through apathy have previously ignored it. Even after the need for a formal
Board has ceased the need for guidance and assistance and the authoritative
rebuttal of misconceptions and misstatements will continue, requiring
continuing service by metrication experts. The Board itself should not be
disbanded until its task is effectively completed;
o the Report to the Senate Select Committee on the metric System of
Weights and Measures (Parliamentary Paper No 19, 1968) provided in effect a
blueprint for Australia's metrication which was based on the evidence given
to that Committee and its deliberation. The guidelines for the change as
there outlined, although in no way binding, have been found to be
appropriate in almost all cases and have been followed quite closely.
NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
Leaflet No 31 March 1995
