It seems that I am expected to answer the question: When did Otis convert?
Taking the question literally, the answer would be “not yet and it never will” because Otis, as most companies that I helped metricate, did not convert in the usual sense of the term. Instead, Otis “phased in globally prevalent (engineering) standards and practices.” I trust many on this forum appreciate the idea that metrication of an established manufacturing company is not a "switchover" event. Otis, in particular, may not yet be considered metric by some and also may continue not to be so for another century or two, that is, until the last building with the 19th century Otis elevator still in service and need of repair is torn down and all the elevator equipment discarded. Some Otis repairmen carry tools that pre-date any ANSI, ASME, SAE, IEEE,.IDIN, … standard, let alone the metric ones. The men encounter such ancient machinery in New York, Chicago, Paris (Eiffel tower) and elsewhere. This makes Otis’s metrication different from most manufacturers that typically make stuff to last barely a generation. To further complicate the metric story – Otis has owned elevator companies abroad that were making metric elevators all along. So the answer to the question is convoluted. But I’ll try. Here is the brief history of the U.S. Otis metrication. Otis Elevator Company joined the drive for metrication as it swept the manufacturing industry in the English-speaking world, such as the U.S. automotive and construction industry, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By 1972, Otis had made a great job in laying out the groundwork for the changeover. That progress stopped abruptly when Otis E. Co. became a division of United Technologies Corporation. Ten years later the metrication program was re-instituted. Contrary to the earlier attempt, this new effort produced no viable gain. Five years after that, in 1987, my company was approached for a consulting help. After the usual touring of a client company to learn about product and business strategy, I made a series of presentations to the upper management outlining the process and describing the commitment needed to make the change happen. The (rudimentary) plan approved, I delivered a training seminar to a selected group of key engineers and engineering managers. Of 3-days duration, typical for such complex industry, the seminar trains enough people in key positions to form a knowledgeable core group. Usually titled the Metrication Steering Committee, it subsequently helps me steer the changeover process “with all bases covered.” The Committee meets then regularly for several years. The ground work – preparation of documentation and seminar contents for the initial classes - moved relatively quickly at Otis thanks to the documents produced at the 1972 effort. An update and writing additional chapters only sped my work so that thru 1988 the design engineering personnel could be trained leaving classrooms with handouts covering all the presented material. Concurrently, the meetings of the steering committee resolved some 100 issues that were of course incorporated into the class routine and also into the company newsletter and similar means of communication. (The USMA forum will appreciate that alongside the strategy items, the Committee also deals with such trivialities as the –er, -re spelling.) To sidetrack, I feel it necessary to outline my teaching methodology. Somewhere I recall reading about a metric training given to the workers only, the notion being that the higher ups with pick it up themselves. That’s like training pupils and expecting the teachers to pick it up (without ever knowing what was taught). No wonder metrication failed in so many organizations. In contrast, my training teaches the whole company. To do this takes quite a while in an industry like Otis’s which deals with thousands of standards worldwide in mechanical, hydraulic, cooling, etc. systems. Think of the Machinery Handbook to appreciate the amount of material to be covered. About 12 hrs is devoted to proficiency with SI units (includes pertinent exercises). This is the easiest standard to teach. The tricky part is to make people fluent with SI, that is, to enable them to obtain the feel for sizes in units needed in their profession. Acquiring the feel is most important for a smooth changeover and positive attitude. Another 12 hrs is devoted to the drafting, hardware and similar standards, again tailored to the various professions. A typical seminar attendee have spent years learning and getting comfortable with the I-P stuff, and now a similar amount of material must be digested in three days. Course handouts accompany every seminar as it is not possible to remember all unless one uses it all immediately. Ball-park figures are provided for the various professions. No conversion is taught. All who need to work metrically are given the training, the documentation, and the tools such as cutting, measuring, assembling. Then there is no need for conversions. Besides, those in a position that would need to do conversions knew the technique long before they sat for a metric class. Back to Otis: With the core group of design and development personnel trained by 1989 Otis was then metric by the definition “all work on a NEW PRODUCT was made according to the globally prevalent …….” This is to say that the organization had its design and development work force able to design, spec out, machine, assembly, test, and procure according to identical practices implemented in all pertinent locations world-wide. Everybody “spoke” the company defined language of drafting, inspection, etc., using symbols wherever they exist, including with all SI units and prefixes (there goes your –re, -er problem). This step accomplished, training spread to other departments as was needed. Seminars of 2 hrs to 24 hrs duration brought the critical mass in every department up-to-date on “metric” knowledge and company practices. Manufacturing, while having reps on the Steering Committee all along, of course, came into the training sequence “just in time.” Courses were tailored to be job specific. Everybody – from the headquarters to janitors became metric literate and capable of working metrically. By default, many employees became “bi-lingual” using the non-metric or metric language when switching between working on new and old product lines. I think I am now loosing readers not familiar with the functions in manufacturing companies like Otis. Suffice to point out that there has to be documentation for all steps of the process and employees must be made aware of it and understand it. Thus my training span not only all U.S. divisions but also those abroad (yes, the metric ones also). As a matter of fact, the last seminar I delivered at a major Otis plant may have been the one in Berlin, Germany in the winter of 1990. I remember it because it was close to Christmas and I was concerned about making it home in time. Otis Worldwide had its standards and practices unified and harmonized by about 1992, and “metric” elevators were made in the U.S. plants without hitches (including having obtained the necessary waivers for getting metric steel from Canada, the beams having probably been rolled in U.S. anyway). Just an illustration of what may hinder metrication. Was Otis metric by 1992? By my definition, Otis E. Co. became metric when all its divisions on all continents adopted the same standards and practices. The new drawings, process and inspection sheets, specifications, etc. enabled instantaneous communication regardless of the native language. I should mention that the company took advantage of metrication as an opportunity to improve business. Working with the Steering Committee, Otis (as most of my clients) were able to incorporate several other programs into the changeover at a lower cost then if done individually. It rationalized selection of hardware, reduced inventory, introduced the principle of compatible design for cost advantage, and similar. All this led to the recovery of the cost of metrication almost as it was happening. Notice that the expense, whatever it was, occurred only once, while the benefits would continue for ever. Back to the more conventional definitions of a metric company: Does Otis, the U.S. branch, still make non-metric product? Of course it does – re-orders, modifications to existing elevators, you name it. Did Otis, the U.S. operation, continued to produce non metric products after it became metric? Of course it did, and it does. Among the reasons - the time between specifying an elevator for a building and actually building one may take decades as the hardware is not fabricated until it is needed. Does Otis make non-metric spare parts? Of course it does, and will be doing so for another 100 years or more. Do Otis repair-persons carry non –metric tools? It depends – in New York , Chicago, … they do; in Dubai probably not. I apologize for this long answer. I hope the above will help many to understand the process of a company metrication better. I had fun reminiscing. Stan Jakuba
