| ABOUT RITA | CONTACT US | PRESS ROOM | CAREERS | SITE MAP |
|
|
|
Volpe Journal Winter 2000Previous Section | Contents | Next Section
Think things through. That was the advice that the young John Hopkins received from his grandfather. No recommendations to buy land instead of stocks, or admonitions about always eating his greens; just: Think things through. "At the time," John said recently, "I thought it was absurd. I assumed, of course you'd think things through." Over the years, however, John has realized that his assumption was not necessarily true: everything is not always as carefully thought through as it ought to be - our appetite for action is often stronger that our regard for careful consideration. Thinking things through requires developing a perspective of an entire system; it requires considering tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and potential impediments to success; and it requires evaluating impacts to a broad range of people. At the heart of this process lies the practice of asking questions - both detailed investigations and fundamental queries that illuminate issues of context, assumptions, and outcomes. As a national expert in the Volpe Center's Transportation Strategic Planning and Analysis Division, John Hopkins helps clients and colleagues to ask the questions that will allow them to make balanced, informed decisions. The multidisciplinary environment at the Volpe Center is the ideal place for this type of careful consideration. The Center is not simply a research and development facility; it fosters innovation through expertise and experience in three crucial domains: transportation, technology, and Federal policy. As a frequent participant and leader in projects that unite these three topics, John Hopkins has been recognized as a national expert in the analysis of policies for the development and application of new technologies. While he is no longer directly involved in the development of technical systems, he contributes to innovation by helping nontechnical people to understand the process better and, thereby, to make more informed decisions. His critical thinking has been an important resource for policy makers addressing transportation issues ranging from rail safety to cybertechnology. Asking the Right Questions Unlike a technical researcher working on the development of a new device, John's efforts often are not focused on the details of alternative solutions to transportation challenges. Rather than dissect the intricacies of a particular project, he explores its overall objectives and the context in which it is situated. "I started out as a physicist," he says, "and physicists are very fond of back-of-the-envelope calculations." While intensive research can provide a level of precision that may foster a sense of confidence ("It makes people think you know what you're doing"), a few focused questions and some relatively simple analysis may illuminate the heart of a problem. "I'm a hopeless generalist," he confesses, but that generality affords him a perspective on the world of transportation and technology that is uncommon in researchers immersed in specific, output-driven projects. Many analysts evaluate a potential new technology by asking, "Will it work technically?" It is John's role to step back and ask, "Will it serve a purpose that makes it successful and valuable to society?" Asking these types of questions at the right time can help to define the role of a new technology, ensuring that valuable resources are not dedicated to a technology or an approach that, feasible or not, does not appear to have a clear place in the nation's transportation system.
Because the intent and form of a planning process shapes its outcomes, John also commonly asks the questions, "What is the real problem? What are we really trying to accomplish? How should our thinking be structured?" For example, John helped to organize and report on the inaugural meeting of the Transportation Committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Working with other staff at the Volpe Center, John developed a "taxonomy" of transportation that became the agenda for the meeting; his report structured transportation technology issues in a way that has guided the Council's activities since 1994. John does not make policy decisions; often his contribution lies in shaping the questions to be addressed, rather than answering them. He supports his clients by participating in the many different components that feed into a planning process. His role ranges from gathering data to preparing documents that communicate ideas to a broad spectrum of stakeholders. At an informal level, he consults with colleagues on a wide range of topics at the intersection of transportation, technology, and policy. He keeps abreast of transportation and policy trends and discusses them with other staff members at the Center, especially in relation to future initiatives with clients and opportunities for future efforts. He also helps to organize Center symposia that keep staff members at the leading edge of emerging transportation issues and technologies, and often prepares issue papers for those symposia. Many of his reports and plans present Federal transportation R&D programs in a way that helps to structure future policy planning efforts, and his issue reports and survey papers disseminate a comprehensive view of technology applications in transportation to a wide audience. Finally, he prepares speaking points for DOT officials that capture the current thrust of Federal research activities and policies. View a list of John Hopkins' Selected Publications What makes a person suited to this somewhat amorphous role as a critical thinker? In John's case, his natural instincts and style have been molded by experience. As the role of the Volpe Center has changed over the years to meet the needs of its clients, John's role has changed as well. He has served as a physicist, an engineer, a computer specialist, an operations research analyst, and a division chief. Like many of the Center's staff, his adaptability is matched only by his ability to incorporate the lessons of previous projects into his current work. The Center's Evolution
John has been thinking about innovation in a Federal context since he began working as an engineer at the NASA Electronic Research Center in 1966, shortly after he received his PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard University. In 1970, NASA transferred its research facility to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Approximately half of the NASA staff, John Hopkins among them, were transferred to the re-christened Transportation Systems Center. It was at that time that the DOT set up the Center's innovative funding structure, which, John says, is key to its success and continued relevance. The Center is funded through client agencies or organizations, which must pay for the Center's services much as they would pay a private consultant. Consequently, the Center has consistently stayed, as John puts it, "light on its feet," modifying its approach to meet the changing needs of its clients, including the Department of Transportation, other Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and other organizations. As the national transportation system has evolved, so has the Volpe Center, remaining at the forefront of both technical and system-oriented innovations. The constant adaptation required by this mode of business is exemplified by Hopkins himself; over the course of his tenure, John has worked with almost every DOT agency, in virtually every mode of transportation. This pattern is evident throughout the Center - almost all veteran staff members have worked on a diverse range of projects, learning new disciplines, working with new clients, and taking new approaches to their work as times change. "As a result," says John, "our clients have become used to the idea that we can take on virtually any problem." The first years of the new Center were an exciting time, says John. "We were getting to work on stuff we used to talk about on our coffee breaks, like highway safety." During the 1970s, John applied his technical skills to a variety of rail projects. The year the Center opened, John explored how to improve safety at railroad grade crossings, where most rail fatalities occur. While his investigations began with the technology of crossing signals, he and the other members of the research team soon found themselves addressing human factors, visual conspicuity, economic constraints, and risk assessment methodologies. During the Energy Crisis, John's research team characterized fuel consumption in the railroad industry, using specially installed gauges to assess the impacts of grade, load, and train speed on locomotive fuel consumption. He also participated in a project to help the railroad industry design more efficient models for rail classification yards, the multi-track facilities where freight cars are transferred from one engine to another based on their destination. Through his work on grade crossing safety, fuel consumption, and rail classification yards, John developed a practical understanding of the railroad industry; he also served a term as Chair of the Transportation Research Board's Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Committee. More importantly, John learned about the importance of developing strong relationships between the public and private sectors; the collaboration and cooperation that characterized the rail projects was key to the successful implementation of the outcome. It is crucial, he maintains, to understand how a system works and to appreciate the perspective of members of stakeholders throughout the public and private sectors. "There's no point in addressing problems unless you work with the industry, since it will be responsible for implementation. Technology and concepts that don't meet their needs - not your perception of their needs - simply won't fly." He began to be drawn into questions of R&D policy, looking for organized ways of setting research priorities. The rail projects also helped John to see that R&D, by itself, does not yield innovation. Even when directed toward the right problems, movement from the research products to full deployment requires an enormous amount of support and handholding, going far beyond merely issuing a final technical report. Often resource-constrained research agencies have a real problem taking those necessary final steps.
Managing Information, Managing Change When the emphasis of Federal transportation research and development shifted from ground transportation to air traffic control modernization in the early 1980s, the change provided both John Hopkins and the Volpe Center an opportunity (and necessity) to demonstrate their adaptability. Soon the Center was busy assisting the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies with the development of computer-based information systems. As they sought to take advantage of newly available technologies, many agencies encountered difficulties in trying to hire private contractors to develop information networks. "How do you write a statement of work," observes John, "when you don't know what you need?" These agencies turned instead to the Volpe Center for objective assistance in determining their needs and developing alternatives. As Chief of the Information Systems Division, John observed that clients tended to ask very narrow questions, such as, "Which operating system is better?" or, "What software package do I need?" Before helping to make those decisions, however, John and his colleagues pushed them to ask more fundamental questions about their needs and goals: "What business are we in? How would we do business differently if we were using computers? How will our needs change?" By encouraging clients to frame the development of new information systems within a broader context, John's team contributed to the development of information systems that are functional, integrated, and adaptable. As he assisted clients with the implementation of new information systems, John was drawn into considering the implications of computer technology. New operational systems, from the cotton gin to the personal computer, bring about significant changes - operational, managerial, and environmental - in the workplace. Managing these changes is crucial to ensuring that new technology contributes fully to the overall goals of an organization. In order to assist clients facing these transitions, the Center began a major initiative to educate staff members in the field of "change management" through a series of intensive week-long courses. These courses furthered the Center's expertise on two fronts: they encouraged information specialists to ask fundamental questions about the purpose of a new information system; and they fostered a sensitivity to the dynamics of organizations and individuals in a state of change. As a participant in those courses, John soon found himself asking a new set of questions: "How do employees respond to the introduction of new technology?" "How is their response a function of their position, their age, or their tenure?" His experience with the FAA and other clients demonstrated that careful consideration of these questions prior to design and implementation was key to the success of the resulting system. Planning an Environment for Innovation In the late 1980s, John again took on a new role. As the Center was supporting the FAA in the development of its Research and Development Plan, Dr. Richard John, now the Center's Director, saw an opportunity to expand the services offered by the Volpe Center to include strategic planning and analysis. The service he envisioned would apply careful planning and analysis to national transportation goals from a much broader perspective than was generally true of technical projects underway throughout the rest of the Center. Strategic planning complements other Center capabilities by providing a direction for efforts and an environment in which innovation can take place. It asks fundamental questions about objectives and strategies, considers the process of innovation and the institutional structure in which it takes place, and recommends policy options. The Transportation Strategic Planning and Analysis Division was formed in 1988 as a home for this type of long-term, broad perspective thinking related to transportation and technology. Since that time, support from the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration and other clients has allowed the division to have a broad and growing role, supporting the DOT, other agencies, and the NSTC. As a charter member of the Division, John Hopkins played - and continues to play - a key role in its success. Shortly after formation of the new division, John synthesized many of the ideas on which the Division was founded in a paper entitled "Getting to 2020: The Process of Introducing New Technology," presented at the Airshow Canada Symposium in 1989. John's experience on many projects, in many modes, with many agencies, had taught him that "the importance and complexity of process in innovation is steadily growing." The analysis addresses the introduction of new technology in terms of four major elements: hardware; operational systems and infrastructure; direct and indirect economic consequences; and societal impacts and consequences. Based on his change management experience, John also stressed the idea that innovation is not strictly a function of technical capabilities, hardware, and ingenuity. It is influenced by driving forces in the society; it must contribute to an existing, structured transportation system; and it is of concern to a vast array of stakeholders. The paper elaborates on this context and presents "a conceptual framework for thinking about system innovation." Moreover, the paper strongly advocates addressing change through the development of effective partnerships between the government, private industry, and public interest groups: "partnership, collaboration, coordination, and compromise will be a necessity among the... institutions involved in creation and use of the new system."
John continues to feel that the themes of the "Getting to 2020" paper remain valid and timely. His ability, exemplified by the paper, to frame questions of innovation within the context of a national transportation system, has made him an important resource for agencies evaluating new technologies. A Report to Congress that he prepared during the early 1990s demonstrates his focus on asking the right questions: "Transportation Implications of Telecommuting." While the study was based largely on technical material contributed by other analysts and technical specialists at the Center, John structured the project and the report in a way that emphasized the relevance of their findings and thereby clarified the debate surrounding the issue. The report made clear the uncertainties in the future level of telecommuting and noted that transportation-related public benefits (such as reduced congestion) associated with the practice may be countered by negative impacts such as additional rural and suburban sprawl and the emergence of "latent travel demand" - commuters who switch from transit or carpools to single-occupancy vehicles to take advantage of reduced congestion. Most importantly, the report helped readers, such as members of Congress, to question the common assumptions associated with telecommuting, especially those related to technological capabilities, the willingness of people to telecommute, social impacts, and transportation-related benefits. This ability to shape a report in a way that "tells a story" is a key part of John's contribution to the Center. His products are intended to convey more than the technical aspects of a project; they highlight assumptions, clarify implications, and identify remaining uncertainties. Because their intent is often primarily to raise awareness, illuminate issues, and foster a better understanding, it is difficult to quantify the impacts of John's efforts. As he put it recently, "You never really know how much impact you're having when your real function is to try to get people to understand the world better, rather than make a particular thing happen." Like a teacher, John hopes that his efforts to promote clear thinking are manifested in better decisions and policies; but it's a long and complicated path to the decisions. Recently, John has been a major participant in an even larger planning effort - that of the NSTC. For that effort, John helped to develop a national strategy for transportation research and development and coordination of research efforts across agencies. Recently, he had a central role in preparation of the National Research and Development Plan for Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency, and Environmental Compatibility. That report, which carries a cover letter from the President's Science Advisor, presents an integrated picture of aviation research underway in the FAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense. Questioning the Future Like the vehicles that comprise it, our Nation's transportation system is constantly moving; from the age of the horse and buggy to the era of the automobile, the means by which we move goods and people have profoundly influenced the environment in which we live. The transportation system is, in turn, a product of engineering, of technology, of innovation. Ongoing efforts in alternative fuels, information technology, and nanotechnology suggest that innovation will continue to shape the way we move. While no one can say what technical breakthroughs will occur, critical thinking and questioning can ensure that Federal efforts are focused on the potential technologies that will be both successful and valuable to society.
John Hopkins has recognized that the potential impacts of a technology, both positive and negative, may be harder to evaluate than its technical feasibility. It is not sufficient to simply measure the costs and benefits of various options - it is crucial to consider who will bear those costs, and who will reap the benefits. A thorough analysis will consider not only the interests of current stakeholders, but also the interests of future generations. John feels this consideration is especially important when evaluating potential impacts to land, water, and air, our legacy to future generations. These elements present a challenge to the analyst - how can an objective analysis measure intangibles such as the value of open space, the importance of quiet, and the necessity of solitude? While these are tough questions, many of the social and environmental problems we face may be rooted in our failure to thoroughly consider the consequences of decisions. We face the future together, and as we choose our course, we might do well to follow the advice of John's grandfather: think things through. |
|
