“Everything you know, and everything everyone knows, is only a model. Get your model out there where it can be viewed. Invite others to challenge your assumptions and add their own.” — Donella Meadows
THE CONTEXT
For years, I approached project management the way many experienced managers do: utilizing a vast toolkit of templates, processes, and methods across different areas to drive successful outcomes. I was using all the right pieces, though they lived in separate boxes rather than a single, overarching framework.
But about 20 years ago, something clicked. I was given a very cumbersome and convoluted project to manage, which needed to be completed, of course, in no time.
THE CLIENT
Large-scale Systems Integration at an Aerospace company.
PROJECT IN NUMBERS
- # of changes to incorporate: ~200
- # of Key prime partners affected by the changes: 15 each managing their own groups of engineers and technical personnel
- # of countries: 4
- # of continents: 3
- Hrs Planning:Execution ratio: 11.50% – While complex, high-risk projects typically require roughly 25–40% of total effort in planning, this project’s planning-to-execution ratio represented a notable achievement. This indicates that the scoping methodology was highly effective in clarifying requirements, surfacing risks early, and creating a strong level of delivery readiness that enabled the team to move into execution faster than would typically be expected.
The Challenge
The direction was daunting: a new wiring standard for an airplane model generated almost 200 changes impacting elements of the wiring design, four major design partners, systems integration teams, wiring teams, the procurement system, and the manufacturing assembly line.
The objective was to redesign the systems element affected by the wiring changes, guaranteeing complete scope coverage and adherence to the schedule, with each of the four design partners owning their respective, interconnected sections of the aircraft’s fuselage.
Almost two hundred changes?
All four partners (two US partners and two international)?
To have all the re-design ready in two months?
Yes, to all of the above.
I gathered myself and my brain to see how I could do that. There was no if. There was only how.
The fundamental issue was that there was no “whole.” The partners worked independently according to their own isolated design processes and standards. While the scope itself was finite (almost 200 changes), it was impacting each partner differently; some changes impacted certain partners significantly more, others less.
Compounding this, communication was not easy. To speak with the four partners in an isolated manner was out of the question. To speak with them in a congregated manner was also out of the question, considering that all four partners were in different time zones and English was not the native language of our two international partners.
Furthermore, Zoom, Google Meets, and any of the handy video conferencing tools that we rely on today did not exist back then.
I had to find a unique method to coordinate and manage the project as if it were seamlessly executed by one unit. I had to ensure that communication, coordination, and execution were clear and timely. Ultimately, I had to find a way to understand and validate the complete scope and its wider impacts in a highly efficient way, which required me to learn a lot, and fast. I had to put robust processes in place.
The Solution
To solve this, I opened the Systems Thinking door of my brain. I started by drawing a big ellipse, and then I drew smaller ellipses containing the things I knew about the problem.
Randomly, I created what I realized at the moment to be a high-level representation of a system of systems.
Next, I went to the owner of the problem—the Director responsible for the outcome—and had them walk me through their view of the issue. More ellipses were drawn. I then went to our four Managers liaising with each partner and brainstormed with them. More ellipses. Then I spoke with two Subject Matter Experts on Systems Integration. After that, I met with the Wiring Lead, the Manufacturing Lead, and the Procurement Lead.
I asked and encouraged all team members to ask as many questions as they could ask and to challenge all the many assumptions that were on the table.
I started linking the ellipses based on whether they were related to each other or not. Then, I went back to all of them to validate the accuracy or correct the map.
This initial mapping took a couple of weeks. Executives were nervous but I told them to trust me.
After those two weeks, I successfully built a cohesive system of systems mapping all interdependencies and relationships. Everything was categorized by organization, type of impact, what was in and what was out, the communication process, and the exact mechanism to manage all the changes.
One of our Managers liaising with one of the international partners jokingly called the map Spaghetti & Meatballs—the meatballs being the ellipses, and the spaghetti noodles being all the lines going to and from them.
I went with that chart everywhere, using it to communicate to all team members–from Exevcutive sponsors, to the doers–how looking at the whole system and understanding how everything was interconnected would get us to the bottom line.
In fact, my Senior Manager offered me a dollar for every time I showed the map—though he never did pay up!
The Results
It worked.
By shifting the perspective to Systems Thinking, the project was perfectly scoped and delivered seamlessly and on time. But it wasn’t achieved through Systems Thinking alone. It was driven by relentless, inquisitive sessions to ensure that the questions made sense and the answers made even more sense.
It required digging into and challenging deep-seated assumptions, many born from a comfort bias rooted in previous designs and “the way things have always been done”—Critical Thinking at its core.
Ultimately, it was about aligning every single team member affected and fully integrating all project management processes.
The approach proved its value entirely by seamlessly integrating four core pillars:
Systems Thinking: To construct a comprehensive “system of systems” that made all cross-functional interdependencies visible and aligned every moving part of the project.
Critical Thinking: To challenge legacy mindsets by systematically auditing all assumptions and gaps, whether explicitly stated or previously overlooked.
Strategic Communication Alignment: To bridge operational and cultural gaps, ensuring a unified, unambiguous understanding across all participating partners and teams.
Project Management Processes: To structure and synchronize the rapid execution and monitoring of nearly 200 changes across an optimized timeline.
From that moment on, the Spaghetti & Meatballs methodology became the foundational lens through which I approached every single project and program I managed.
————-
Years later, after retiring from Corporate and partnering with my daughter in this boutique consultancy of ours, the methodology naturally evolved from that original Spaghetti & Meatballs into Bridge&Map™.
We imagine a project—a problem to be solved—on one side of a river, with the goal somewhere on the other side.
Built upon these four foundational pillars, what Bridge&Map™ offers is akin to design and engineering a sturdy bridge and creating a detailed map, ensuring that organizations not only cross the river successfully but also have the tools to navigate the terrain beyond.