No_10_October_1968 — Page 27

Some implications of a change to metric for the Building Industry

Measure for measure in Hong Kong

by M.G. Munday

IT was for a variety of reasons, in- cluding then current moves to join the European Common Market, solve ba- lance of payments problems, and im- prove internal industrial efficiency, that the Confederation of British Industry, in 1965, initiated a change to the met- ric system of measurement through- out industry in the United Kingdom.

Government approval for this pro- posal was given and one of the first sectors to plan its implementation was Building. Others have since followed suit, and the changeover in industry generally is due for completion by 1975. Pressure is now being exerted by other sections of the economy for gov- ernment action to make the change in the U.K. complete.

The British Standards Institution was appointed as the central planning body for the changeover, and they, to- gether with the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works and the active co-operation of the building industry as a whole, set up a programme for that industry in 1966 which is now well under way and is due to be com- pleted in 1972 (3). This programme involves a great deal more than the simple substitution of metres for feet, and it is essential to understand both whom it concerns and why it has found such ready acceptance.

Who to change

A building industry plays a major role in the economic, social, cultural and even spiritual development of most countries and, other factors apart, the growth of the population and a con- stant need to improve standards en- sure a forseeable future of enormously increased demand for its output. As the only organisation engaged in the pro- cess of designing buildings, it is the source of one of society's most unique, expensive, complex, large and influen- tial durable consumer products.

In many countries too the industry is becoming increasingly aware, not only of its collective responsibilities, but also of its faults and of its inade- quacies in providing these products on a scale and to a quality compatible with the environmental needs of a

world of increasingly rapid social, eco- nomic and technical change and ad- vance. This awareness is evidenced by the extensive self-analytical studies it has initiated in recent years.

Few industries have ever shown foresight on such a scale, and it is al- ready clear that the improvements re- quired of it centre around those basic relationships between the many diverse but constituent disciplines that com- prise its structure. In all cases a re- cognition of their inter-dependence, by builder, architect, supplier, engineer, surveyor, manufacturer, planner, speci- alist, government agency and client alike, is seen as a pre-requisite of the re-thinking needed to achieve these improvements.

This recognition of inter-dependent relationships is basically an attitude of mind, the logical result of which can only be an efficient organisation for the industry based on a sound network of communications.

The change to metric therefore is clearly only a part of a much broader picture of change and improvement currently recognised as being needed. in the industry. Nevertheless it is a substantial and influential step, not only towards a common language, in- terdependence, and unity of effort, but also towards much greater all-round success in the industry's basic task of designing buildings.

In any such process a special res- ponsibility is placed on the designer as the production initiator. It is he who holds the key position and is the first party to be concerned with any change, so the success with which he handles it

will show in the subsequent efficiency of the process, and therefore of the in- dustry as a whole.

What to change

With buildings, of course, the de- signers are the architect and his team. It is their decisions, in committee, on "drawing board" and elsewhere in this socio-industrial process, that have re- percussions on the work of everyone else within the industry, and on many other related fields outside it as well.

It is not always fully appreciated

that the importance of the proposal lies not just in the adoption of a new set of measurements, which alone would be hardly worth while, but in the improvements it will bring with it. A simple change to traditional metric measure would only be a minor gain to Building. The correct choice of sys- tem is, nevertheless, important, since multiple units of measure, or any need for subsequent changes, would be in- efficient, disruptive, and confusing.

In the U.K. the official changeover policy involves the adoption of S.I. Units and dimensional co-ordination on a basic 10 cm. module. The selection of the Systeme International d'Unites, (S.I. Units) has been made because it is the only fully coherent, rationalised and universally acceptable system of decimal units based on the metre etc., that is in international use. (1).

The other metric systems that exist are not a logical choice because of their non-coherence. Direct translation from the existing to the new values, even with the improved system, should how- ever be resisted. Conversions of this nature will often prove disastrous, for they ignore the most important aspect of the change, which is the necessity for it to be accompanied by a change in THINKING (2) (13).

The adoption of new measurements will inevitably bring with it some ti- dying up and an increase in dimensional discipline, but it will also provide an ideal situation for a re-appraisal of components dimensions, design and performance. (6).

For the building industry this is a very important and rare opportunity and advantage must be taken of it to

make much needed advances in tech- nology and to implement ideas, techni- ques and standards previously obstruct- ed by existing limitations (8). Stan- dardisation and rationalisation, with the ultimate aim of full metric dimen- sional co-ordination, can be achieved if the change is accompanied by thinking that checks, from first principles, the

Mr. M.G. Munday, Dip. Arch, ARIBA, is lecturer in Building Technology in the Department of Architecture, University of Hong Kong.

Far East BUILDER, October 1968.

25