Points well made. But unfortunately once one starts making well made points
he starts ignoring one's points.
What we in the UK (and presumably the US) call "out of his depth".
From: Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:34748] Re: Dr. Barber
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:59:34 -0600
Daniel writes:
> Yes, you may hurt feelings when you call someone stupid,
> but sooner or later they will come to realize it is true.
This comment is exceedingly naïve (but entirely in character
with Daniel). To think you can EVER convince someone they
are stupid by calling them stupid is, well, stupid.
Now, Daniel, do you realize you are stupid? Or do you admit your
comment was erroneous?
> People have to be made aware there is a cost to not metricating
> and the cost is something they will have to endure.
If you ever made someone aware of this, then they could choose whether
to metricate. But you don't try to educate, you just try to offend.
> Jim Elwell pointed out that industry is converting even if it is
> hidden from public view. People who run successful businesses
> have to be smart to survive and if metrication increases their
> chances of survival, they do it because it is the smart thing to
> do. They don't worry if the man at the bottom doesn't like metric.
> He can always go elsewhere if he doesn't like the choice made
> for him.
This, again, exudes naïveté. Part of being successful is having
satisfied employees. You don't get satisfied employees by ignoring
what "the man at the bottom" likes or does not like. Furthermore, the
"man at the bottom" is intensely interested in the well-being of his
employer,
so his interest will largely correlate with the company's interest. That
is, as
long as the "man at the top" takes the time to communicate decisions that
need to be made, the reasons for them, and accepts feedback from
everyone, rather than just calling the "man at the bottom" stupid.
Think about it, Daniel.
Oh, and it is a very rare decision that is as trivial as "metrication
increases
the chances for survival." Any decision such as metricating a company
has to take into account a myriad of factors, such as:
* what savings will be realized by metricating?
* where will metrication increase costs?
* what equipment will need to be scrapped? how costly?
* what equipment will need to upgraded or modified? how costly?
* when and how will employees need to be trained? how costly?
* what drawings can remain colloquial, which ones need updating? how
costly?
* what inventory items will need to be scrapped, and how much are they
worth?
* what are the lead times for new metric inventory?
* is there shelf space available for the new inventory?
* how will part numbers reflect metric vs. non-metric inventory?
* how much will the new metric inventory cost?
* will cash flow support a fast change or a only a slow change?
* what products can be partially metricated?
* which customers will accept metrication? which will not?
* which subcontractors will accept metric work? which will not?
* will any sole-source parts be able to be metricated?
* will any sole-source vendors be able to be metricated?
* what contract-compliance issues will be encountered?
* what warranty issues will be encountered?
* how will long-term support (repair) be affected by two versions of
products?
* what tax issues come from upgrading or scrapping equipment (capital
assets,
depreciation, etc.)?
* what tax issues come from obsoleting inventory?
* are there any marketing advantages to going metric?
* will any defensive marketing need to be done?
I could certainly go on, but most of you will get the point: there is no
one in the
world who knows the answers to all these questions except the business
owners
themselves, and even then the answers to many questions are, at best,
educated
guesses.
So, Daniel, when are you going to stop viewing the world through your
simplistic
"good/bad" rose-colored glasses? You will be much more effective at helping
us
metricate this country when you see it realistically.
Jim Elwell
Jim Elwell, CAMS
Electrical Engineer
Industrial manufacturing manager
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
www.qsicorp.com
