I’ve never asked subject matter experts to design training. That was never their job.
That statement alone makes some people uncomfortable, especially in organizations where SMEs have been quietly handed responsibility for learning outcomes without the authority, time, or design expertise to actually deliver them. But discomfort aside, this distinction matters. Because when we misunderstand the role of SMEs, we design training that feels productive but doesn’t actually improve performance.
The SMEs I work with are usually managers of the work. They’re accountable for results.
They’re responsible for people hitting targets, meeting standards, reducing risk, and delivering outcomes that show up in dashboards and reports. They live in the numbers every day.
They know exactly where performance slips.
They know where quality breaks down.
They know where new hires stall.
They know where revenue leaks quietly over time.
What they don’t need is to be turned into instructional designers.
SMEs Are Not Content Factories
Somewhere along the way, organizations conditioned SMEs to believe their job in training conversations was to provide content. Slide decks. Talking points. A list of “things people need to know.” The result?
Learning requests that start with solutions instead of problems.
“Can we build a course on this?”
“We need a workshop for that.”
“Let’s do a refresher training.”
Those requests aren’t wrong, they’re just incomplete. When SMEs are asked to lead with content, they do exactly what they’ve been trained to do: describe what they know.
But knowledge is not the same thing as performance. And training built around information, without a clear performance target, is how you end up with beautifully designed programs that don’t move the business forward. That’s why I don’t ask SMEs what kind of course they want.
Conditioning the Conversation Differently
Instead, I put a process in place that conditions the conversation differently from the start.
Before anyone talks about format, modality, or duration, SMEs are asked to describe the business objective they’re trying to improve. Not the training they want delivered, the result they want changed.
That shift is intentional. It forces clarity. And it changes the dynamic immediately.
I’ll ask questions like:
- What’s not working the way it should?
- Where are people getting stuck?
- What’s the cost of this problem continuing for another six months?
- What would success look like if this were fixed?
Then we name the objective plainly.
Revenue.
Retention.
Quality.
Time-to-proficiency.
Fewer errors.
Faster handoffs.
Stronger customer outcomes.
That question is easier for SMEs to answer because it’s already their job. They manage outcomes, not courses. They think in terms of targets, risk, and results, even if they’ve never been invited to frame a learning request that way before.
And once that shift happens, everything downstream gets better.
Why This Makes SMEs Better Partners
There’s a quiet benefit to this approach that doesn’t get talked about enough: it actually strengthens relationships with SMEs.
When you ask an SME to design training, you put them in a position where they’re likely to fail. Not because they aren’t smart or capable, but because learning design isn’t their discipline. That creates friction later when the solution doesn’t land, or when leaders question the impact.
When you ask an SME to define the business objective, you put them back in their lane, the lane they’re confident in. They don’t have to guess at learning theory. They don’t have to justify design decisions. They just have to articulate the outcome they’re accountable for.
That builds trust.
It also makes expectations explicit. Everyone is aligned on what success looks like before a single storyboard is built or a module is outlined. No surprises. No retroactive “this isn’t what we meant.” No moving targets halfway through development.
Once the What and the Why Are Clear, I Take It From There
This is where learning strategy actually begins.
Once the what (the outcome) and the why (the business need) are clear, the rest is my responsibility.
Design.
Modality.
Reinforcement.
Measurement.
This is where expertise matters.
Sometimes the solution is training. Sometimes it’s performance support. Sometimes it’s a workflow change paired with targeted learning moments. Sometimes it’s a manager enablement issue that has nothing to do with front-line capability.
Because the goal was never “build a course.”
The goal was “fix the problem.”
Learning strategy means choosing the right intervention, not defaulting to the most familiar one. It means understanding where learning fits into the system of work, and where it doesn’t. And it means being disciplined about measurement.
Measuring What Actually Matters
When learning is anchored to a business objective, measurement stops being an afterthought.
You’re no longer scrambling to prove value after launch. You already know what success looks like because it was defined upfront. Did time-to-proficiency decrease? Did error rates drop? Did retention stabilize? Did managers spend less time correcting the same mistakes?
These are not abstract learning metrics. They’re operational signals. And they’re far more persuasive than completion rates or satisfaction scores.
This is also where learning teams earn credibility. When you can speak fluently about business impact, without overcomplicating it, you stop being seen as a support function and start being treated as a strategic partner.
Coming next: how to build trust and accountability with SMEs and senior leaders by bringing the right stakeholders in early. Keeping approvals from being a last-minute scramble, feedback isn’t political, relationships get stronger, and rework disappears before it starts.