Dear Galen and Scott, I have interspersed some remarks in red.
On 6/12/06 8:03 PM, "Galen A. Tanner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Pat, > > I hope all is well for you and yours. As you may know you were quoted this > past week on something that was written about building waste being reduced > using the SI. > > "In the 1970s, I was directly involved with the Australian building industry > as they made their upgrade to metric units. At that time we estimated that > each major building company and their sub-contractors, who made a quick clean > metric transition, could expect to increase their gross profits by between 15 > % and 20 % and their net profits by about 12 % as a direct result of their > transition to metric. This observation came from 100s of conversations that I had with construction workers in the mid-1970s when I was running training programs for construction workers at Preston Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Included in this program were people from the following trades: boilermakers, bricklayers, builders laborers, carpenters, fitters and machinists, furniture builders, piano makers, plumbers, and welders. Most of these people were leaders in their trade and many (probably most) owned their own sub-contracting businesses. They were very sensitive to, and aware of, any possibilities for cost savings and for their dollar values. The few exceptions to the owner/managers were people like the builders laborers who are untrained and unqualified building workers who were brought along by their bosses to master metric construction. The figures: > could expect to increase their gross profits by between 15 % and 20 % and > their net profits by about 12 % as a direct result of their transition to > metric. were based on my direct interviews with these people both in the context of the metric training programs and in follow-up interviews on their various job sites. > As an example, one of the companies that I worked with actually built two > houses side-by-side one in imperial measures and the other in metric units. > The waste was collected and taken away at the end of construction. The feet > and inches house produced two and a half 5-tonne truckloads of waste while the > waste from the metric house did not fill a wheelbarrow. This example came from a company called A.V. Jennings and Company who were at that time the largest builder of private homes in Australia. They're still quite large but they fell on hard times after the death of their founder Sir Albert Jennings. You can see samples of their work at http://www.avjennings.com.au/VIC/home_designs?cid=703&pid=8216 Notice that the lengths on the plans are all in millimetres and that this is so acceptable here that it isn't even mentioned on the drawings. The two test houses were built side-by-side with the utmost care being taken to ensure that all other factors were the same: similar experienced crews, the same tool sets, the same timber supplier (supplying metric to one job and imperial to the other), the same company supervisor for both jobs, etc. The results for this experiment were reported in the form of a training film strip and I can still visualise the two 5-tonne trucks full of imperial waste standing behind the wheelbarrow containing the metric waste. I suppose that there was a written report produced at that time (about 1975) but I never saw it. > Every Australian building company has enjoyed the advantage of being metric > since the mid-1970s and they will continue to gain from these profits > indefinitely into the future. This is the conclusion that I drew based on the above experiences. > A gain of 12 % applied across an entire building industry is quite a lot of > money so it struck me forcefully when similar figures were produced when the > Confederation of British Industry (CBI) conducted a survey of their members in > about 1980 where they found similar savings (15 % of gross profits and 11 % of > net profits)." I never saw it You will recall that it has been a little while since you wrote to me about this. The reason for the delay is that I have been looking for my copy of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey report from 1980. I used to have an electronic version of this report but, sadly, in one of my hard disk crashes it seems to have gone missing. You may be able to get a copy from the CBI but when I wrote to them to request another copy I had no reply. > > When I first read this I was skeptical but said nothing. Now it has been used > (refered to not republished) and we need to defend it. Is there any > possibility you have documentation on this project, figures on company profit > increases due to metrication and the CBI survey? This would help us greatly > as we try to justify urging the construction indusrty in the US to stop > blocking the metrication efforts by our government. In my opinion there were two keys to the fast, smooth, and economical upgrade to the metric system in Australia. 1 The use of millimetres eliminated all fractions from building sites and for the first time (since the building of the pyramids) ordinary building workers didn't have to fiddle with fractions. Modern workers can even calculate relatively complex things like the diagonal lengths of a rectangular building on a cheap calculator easily and efficiently. 2 The Australian building industry took the opportunity provided by the metrication upgrade to rethink and to reengineer house design and construction. > > The blog is at: http://blog.myspace.com/metricnut > > Scott started this blog at my urging and I'm hopefull something will come of > it, but we need correct information. Thanks for this reference. I enjoyed reading your blog and the associated responses. I wish you well with your blog project project. Cheers and sorry for the slow response, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305, Belmont, 3216 Geelong, Australia Phone 61 3 5241 2008 Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe at http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter Pat is also recognised as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. He is also editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' section of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual for writers, editors and printers'. He is a Member of the National Speakers Association of Australia and the International Federation for Professional Speakers. See: http://www.metricationmatters.com This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
