Guest blog by Vanessa Geita, Gabriel Bona, Ivy Karue, Liam Aldan, Alicia Marian and Junior Gabriel Logo
We started this program with a clear sense of purpose, or at least, that’s what we believed. It felt like assembling the Avengers of online learning. We had Liam Aldan from Divine Word University, our systems and e-learning specialist. We had Gabriel Bona from the University of Papua New Guinea, who brought deep experience in IT, platforms, and digital transformation. Then there was Vanessa Geita, an accountant, entrepreneur, podcaster, and course creator who understands content and structure better than most.
We also had Ivy Karue from Marie Stopes PNG, whose work already revolves around digital facilitation and online learning platforms. And finally, our two incredible volunteers from the Sepik Labour Mobility Program, Alicia Marian and Junior Gabriel Logo, both of whom actively use online learning tools in their day-to-day roles. On paper, it was a perfectly defined team. Everyone had a lane, everyone had expertise, and everyone seemed to understand exactly why they were there. Or so we thought.
As the program progressed, we kept receiving the same piece of feedback: our problem was too solution-driven. We were zeroing in on a single, narrow fix instead of taking the time to truly understand the broader problem. In PDIA terms, we had jumped straight to the “building the bridge” stage without first asking whether we were even addressing the right river.
Instead of unpacking the problem, breaking it down, and exploring multiple possible entry points, the core of PDIA, we were hyper-focused on validating the solution we already had in mind. It didn’t sit right with us at first. After all, our team was built around expertise in online systems, so naturally our minds went straight to building an online solution. But PDIA demanded that we slow down, zoom out, and let the performance gaps speak for themselves before assuming we knew the answer.
When we talked about how much progress we made and what we learned about our problem throughout the process, one word kept coming up in our discussions: humbling. We entered this course with a very clear and very confident idea of what our solution should be. But around week five, during the live session where Professor Matt unpacked our fishbone diagram piece by piece, it became obvious that our entire approach paid little to no attention to the context in which the problem is felt.
That moment was a turning point for us. Until then, we hadn’t fully understood how narrowly we were looking at the problem. We weren’t wrong, but we weren’t seeing the whole picture either. PDIA pushed us to confront the uncomfortable truth that when you focus too early on a single solution, you limit your field of vision. You end up zooming in on what you want to fix, instead of understanding what actually needs attention.
Over time, we finally started to look at the problem more holistically and realized that the issue was not a lack of a platform or framework to accept applications or facilitate learning. The real challenge was that workers leaving for employment in Australia were not adequately prepared for success. They were not trained or properly sensitized to working in different cultures or contexts.
We had to question the current preparation processes in the SLMP and at the national level, speak to actual workers and then start to take small steps within our capacity to address the gaps we identified.
Eventually, we were able to revise our problem statement to the one we currently have: workers recruited through the Sepik Labor Mobility Program are inadequately prepared for overseas employment due to unclear, undocumented, and unstructured preparation processes.
This new framing allowed us to examine the causes more thoroughly, explore the sub-causes in greater depth, and identify additional entry points for developing effective solutions. With a clearer understanding of the real problem, we could focus our efforts on addressing the system gaps and building strategies that would genuinely prepare workers for success abroad.
For us, this was a humbling realization. The problem we thought we had wasn’t the real problem at all – it was just a symptom of a larger system issue. By stepping back, examining the causes and sub-causes, and allowing the problem to reveal itself layer by layer, we began to see more entry points, more potential solutions, and more opportunities for corrective action than we had assumed at the start.
One of our biggest collective learnings from this course was that real change takes time. PDIA reminded us that progress isn’t always fast or linear, and that our role isn’t necessarily to finish everything. It’s to start well. If we lay the right foundations, others can carry the work forward long after our part is done. That shift in mindset was grounding for all of us.
Another major takeaway was the Fishbone tool. This simple but powerful method helped us visualize the problem, its causes, and all the sub-causes hiding underneath. It opened up new entry points we hadn’t considered before, and it quickly became a favourite for the entire team. Several of us even admitted we will be using it not just at work, but in our personal lives as well, because once you start seeing fishbones, you cannot unsee them.
A third key lesson was the importance of constructing and then deconstructing the problem before jumping into solutions. We realised just how easy it is to rush ahead, especially with a team full of people trained to build systems and tools. PDIA pushed us to slow down, ask better questions, and understand what was really going on beneath the surface.
Our fourth learning came from one of our team members: a problem isn’t solved if the user isn’t using the solution. You can build the most beautiful platform in the world, but if people don’t use it, the problem still exists. That insight shifted how we think about design, adoption, and the real purpose of any solution.
And finally, we learned that context matters. Understanding who the authorizers are, involving the people directly connected to the problem, and listening to those closest to the systems we were analyzing added depth to our understanding. Their perspectives helped us see the full story, not just the part visible from the outside.
When we reflected on how we might approach this process differently in the future, several ideas came up as a team. Vanessa suggested a communication strategy with the authorizers involved in the journey. During this process, we found that communication with SLMP could sometimes be challenging, and having a structured plan from the start would help maintain clarity, alignment, and collaboration.
Another key insight we discussed was the importance of slowing down instead of rushing to a solution. In future PDIA exercises, we agreed as a team that we would take more time to fully understand the root causes, test ideas in small steps, and allow solutions to emerge organically rather than assuming we already know the answer.
When we discussed how we would use what we’ve learned from this course, several ideas emerged. Ivy shared how she plans to apply PDIA tools in her work within the development space at an NGO. She explained that tools like the Change Space Analysis and the Fishbone Diagram could be invaluable for designing work plans, developing strategies, and planning implementation in a way that is both localized and problem-driven. By focusing on outcomes and indicators that donors hope to achieve, these tools help ensure that solutions are grounded in the realities of the communities and systems being served.
Other team members were inspired to extend the impact of the course beyond our cohort. Gabriel, for example, expressed interest in coaching future PDIA participants and encouraging colleagues at the University of Papua New Guinea to form a PDIA group for the next cohort. This collective enthusiasm reflected a shared commitment not just to applying the tools ourselves, but to fostering PDIA thinking and problem-driven approaches across our wider networks.
When it came to words of encouragement for future PDIA practitioners, our team spoke about the importance of balance. PDIA is an insightful and powerful program, but it requires time and focus. Finding the right balance, giving it the attention it deserves while managing other commitments, allows you to enjoy the process more and get the most out of the learning experience.
We also reflected on the power of teamwork. Over the 12 weeks, we managed to submit all our assignments on time, a feat that might have seemed daunting in other group settings. What made it possible was the high level of cooperation, commitment, and trust we built as a team. By establishing good relationships, keeping each other accountable, and supporting one another, we were able to navigate challenges and pull through together.
In short, the lessons are clear: balance your time, invest in strong team relationships, and trust the collective effort. When you do, not only does the work flow more smoothly, but the experience becomes far more rewarding.
This blog was written by participants who completed a 12-week PDIA for PNG online learning program from August – November 2025. 44 participants successfully completed this program.