2002-04-27 If you are working with an American client on an Engineering project and the issue of measurement systems or standards never arises, would you feel free to use SI? Because metric components, such as steel and fasteners are readily available in the US, even though the majority of Engineers are ignorant of this, would you feel compelled to spec out metric parts if it is not specifically stated FFU and/or FFU parts must be used?
I have been to many customer facilities where European and Asian systems and machines have been installed in these factories. Since these products are built in the home countries, there is no "conversion" of parts just because the use of the product will be in the US. They still use metric fasteners, metric steel, metric wire and metric sized electrical panels. The only things I ever noticed to be FFU, are the dual gages that appear to be on the machines and of course the operations units will be in FFU on the CRT display. In all cases, the "operator" can chose SI or FFU. But, FFU is always the choice. If American companies have been buying foreign machines with metric components for decades, then why can't American companies design and produce metric machines? And with the expertise of foreign engineers and consultants, this should take the sting out of any changeover, no? Some years ago, I was told we shouldn't use metric parts in our products because "our" customers were not metric. I responded with the comment that they are more metric then anyone can imagine. When I mentioned the factories with all imported metric equipment and even the fact that "our" customers were buying machines from John Deere and Caterpillar, and these companies are full metric, all I got was a silence and disbelief. It was when some fellow employees accompanied me on some of the business trips and I was able to show them, that they believed, but were speechless. I was left alone on this issue afterwards. Some suppliers using metric and others using FFU only creates confusion in the long term. This where problems like having to stock double inventory to accommodate metric and FFU fasteners used in machines. Having to keep a double set of tools. The waste of time in assembly and repair when the machine needs metric parts and tools and the assembler/maintenance man assumed he was working on an inch machine and left his metric tools in his truck or shop and had to go get them (or worse yet, doesn't have any). Or the problems that result when someone tries to mismatch a fastener (putting an inch fastener in a metric threaded hole) and causes expensive damage. It is obvious that the Engineers on such projects don't see these problems, as they are not the ones working on the equipment. They may spec out FFU parts thinking that everyone else is too and the fact is everyone else is not, and down the road problems result. So, Terry, would you be compelled to point out to a client if he specifies FFU that all other equipment on the project is SI and his choice of FFU is going to be a problem? Would you feel compelled to "educate" your client who may assume falsely that all other contractors on a project are using FFU? Would you feel compelled to point out that a product your customer is wanting to build in FFU may not be marketable in most of the world? And would you feel compelled to inform him if you have proof, that the product/project would be so many dollars cheaper if he used metric in design and specification of parts. Many clients may not know that metric parts and supplies are readily available in the US and some less costly than FFU. If you can convince even a few to give it a go and go with SI, you will help create an even greater demand for SI products and hopefully to the point of letting market forces drive FFU out of the market. Terry, we are the market forces and we need to be the ones who create the demand for SI at the expense of FFU. If we don't do it, it won't get done. And you and I will spend the rest of our working careers accommodating FFU, while the others talk about drips and drops here and there. John ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-04-27 10:03 Subject: [USMA:19699] RE: Engineering next wave of overseas outsourcing > Of kilopascal > "The article made me think and wonder if when these foreign engineers > are contracted to design products for American companies," > > I have some experience of US clients, so here is my response. > > It is not common for me to use measurement units in my work but it does > occasionally happen (as you can see from previous postings). Being > British means that I have few problem thinking in old units if required > and it merely feels like stepping back in time. > > Being a foreign subcontractor always means there is one more issue to be > careful about. The competition is against US companies and the manager > may have taken a bold step to go 'foreign'. I am often in tough > negotiations and merely being foreign can be used as argument against an > idea. I even try to avoid UK spelling when communicating to US clients. > > > " do they do it in SI or in FFU?" > > I respond to the need of the client. I provide the client with the > benefit of knowledge from sources in the US and elsewhere, therefore > there would be metric influence. Usually I translate into non-metric > units in conversation in the same way that a German speaker uses English > for an English speaker. > > > "So, would foreign Engineers give in and use FFU to satisfy an American > client" > > Yes I do. > > > " and then maybe use their FFU experience on other projects not related > to America?" > > No I don't. > > > "Would they be a force to change American habits of using FFU to that of > using SI?" > > Of course. International contacts do cross-fertilise. How much is > another question that depends on the project. > > > "In this particular article, these engineers are from the Indian company > of Infosys Technologies, Ltd. > > Note that India is a former British colony and they adopted many British > traditions (driving on the left, UK plugs). I am sure that the British > attempted to use UK measurements in India before independence. > > > "Would these Indian Engineers attempt to convince their American Client > that using metric is more cost effective in the long term?" > > I doubt it. My experience with Indian engineers is that you get exactly > what you ask for (even if it is not what you meant). > > > "Would they do their designs in metric and if required convert them to > FFU if the client demands it? Or would they work completely in FFU?" > > It could be either. It would be influenced by whether they were on-site > in the US (using US tooling/methods) or off-site in India (Indian > tooling/methods). > > > "If Engineering is going to be outsourced, this is the perfect > opportunity for bringing metric into US made products on a more subtle > approach." > > International contacts will always be good for internationalisation. > > > "Kind of like sneaking it in the back door. And thus creating a greater > demand for such things as metric sized steel, metric fasteners, etc." > > I wouldn't place too much emphasis on subcontracting of technical work. > Bigger influences are likely to be: > * buying in supplies > * deliberate manufacturing to sell internationally > > > -- > Terry Simpson > Human Factors Consultant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.connected-systems.com > Phone: +44 7850 511794 >
