Established suppliers were fully metric. Sometimes there were issues when we had to look at a non-traditional supplier for new technology; training a new supplier WAS an issue, and the issues were a lot more than metric. A non-traditional supplier has to recognize automotive has some unique business practices and he has to make a decision whether it is worth it. Either jump in with both feet or jump out.
As to dissent from within, the company was metric when I joined in 1978 (I worked for an electronics company before that). They had been metric for around 5 years and any issues were over. In interviewing, it was very rare to encounter an engineer who didn't understand that we were metric and he would have to work work in metric. Registering too much surprise was not favorable to the hiring decision. But obviously, I don't understand an environment in which state DoTs are pushed around by road contractors, while I would understand them being pushed around by Federal DoT. The pecking order seems inverted. --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> > Subject: [USMA:43785] Re: Arizona I-19 losing kilometer signs > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 11:21 PM > Wouldn't the USMA love it if all companies were like > that? > > I wonder what the reaction to that comment usually is. > Did they give you the evil eye? > > Why would a supplier want to slip in an English drawing if > they know you will reject it? How often were the metric > numbers just exact conversions of rounded English numbers? > > > How did you/do they handle dissent from within? > I'm sure it must happen from time to time. > > Jerry
