There’s a moment every training project hits the same wall.
You’ve got a deadline. You’ve got a topic that matters (safety, compliance, customer service, systems). And you’ve got exactly one person in the business who “knows how it really works”.
So you do the sensible thing: you bring in more people who know it.
Multiple subject matter experts (SMEs) should make training faster to build and easier to get right. In practice, it can also turn into:
- conflicting advice (“that’s not how we do it”)
- competing egos (“I wrote the original process”)
- inconsistent tone (five authors, five voices)
- circular reviews (everyone edits everything, forever)
The good news: yes, you can have multiple SMEs share expertise together. It just needs a bit of structure—less “group project”, more “production line”.
Below is a practical playbook you can copy, whether you’re building an onboarding pathway for a logistics team, a policy module for a law firm, or a standard operating procedure for an FMCG site.
Why multiple SMEs usually go wrong
Most teams assume the problem is “getting people to contribute”.
It’s not.
The problem is getting people to contribute in the same direction—with one set of outcomes, one voice, and one final decision-maker.
If you skip that, adding more SMEs doesn’t speed things up. It multiplies differences.
The playbook: how to make multiple SMEs work
1) One topic, one way (agreement beats volume)
The golden rule is still the same: the expertise being captured has to be consistent.
Before anyone writes a word, lock in the “one way”:
- What is the standard method?
- What exceptions exist (and who can approve exceptions)?
- What is out of scope for this topic?
This is where SMEs can get political—especially if the topic touches ownership, status, or “the right way”.
So give the group a safe, neutral mechanism for decision-making. Two simple options:
- Option A: the organisation decides first.
A manager, compliance lead, or ops owner sets the standard, then SMEs build training around it. - Option B: SMEs decide together, with a chair.
SMEs work it through, but one person chairs the decision and calls time.
Either way, write the outcome down as a short “agreed approach” statement. That single paragraph stops weeks of rework.
2) One way, one explanation (the learner deserves consistency)
Even when SMEs agree on the method, they often explain it differently.
That creates training that feels stitched together:
- one section sounds like a legal memo
- another sounds like a toolbox talk
- another sounds like a personal opinion
So you need a shared explanation structure.
A simple pattern that works across industries:
- What this is (plain language)
- When you do it
- Steps (the flow)
- Watch-outs (common mistakes)
- Proof (what “done right” looks like)
If you’re using a platform like Tribal Habits, this becomes much easier because each topic naturally follows a consistent content format, rather than letting every SME freestyle.
3) One way, many parts (divide the work so it’s actually parallel)
Once the approach and structure are agreed, carve the topic into clean parts.
Think in:
- steps in a process
- rules and thresholds
- roles and handoffs
- scenarios (“If X happens, do Y”)
The aim is to remove overlap.
A practical method:
- Build an outline with headings that match your structure
- Add a short description under each heading (what belongs here)
- Assign each heading to an SME as an “owner”
If two SMEs both want the same part, that’s a clue the boundaries aren’t clear enough yet.
4) One way, two build options (sequential vs parallel)
You already called this out in the original post, and it’s still true: you have two build choices.
Option A: Build in sequence (better consistency)
One SME drafts their section, then the next SME continues, and so on.
Pros
- consistent voice
- fewer duplicates
- simpler review
Cons
- slower
- the first SME sets the writing style (for better or worse)
This works well when:
- the topic is sensitive (compliance, legal risk, WHS)
- you need a very consistent tone
- SMEs have low availability
Option B: Build in parallel (faster, but needs tighter controls)
All SMEs draft their parts at the same time.
Pros
- faster output
- momentum rises
- SMEs can learn from each other
Cons
- tone differences
- overlaps appear
- review load increases
This works well when:
- speed is the main driver (new system rollout, legislative change, acquisition)
- you have a strong editor to bring it together
Practical tip: parallel drafting works best when everyone writes into the same pre-built template, not blank pages.
5) Add one editor (the “single throat to choke” role)
Here’s the simplest upgrade you can make:
Stop asking SMEs to do final editing.
SMEs should supply expertise. Editing is a separate skill.
Nominate a single editor (L&D, HR, ops coordinator, training admin) who:
- applies the shared structure
- standardises tone
- removes duplicates
- checks the learner flow
- calls out missing steps or unclear rules
SMEs then review for accuracy only—not wording preferences.
This one move cuts review cycles dramatically.
6) Set review rules that prevent “everyone edits everything”
Group review is where projects stall.
Replace open-ended feedback with rules like:
- SMEs can suggest changes only in their assigned section
- cross-section feedback goes to the editor, not the author
- the editor decides tone and formatting
- the topic owner decides disputes
If you want to be even tighter, define three review stages:
- Accuracy review (SMEs)
- Clarity review (editor)
- Approval (topic owner)
7) Use collaboration features properly (real-time beats email)
If you’re still building training through Word docs, email threads, and “final_v7_reallyfinal” files, multiple SMEs will be painful.
Modern collaboration tools exist for a reason. For example, Confluence supports real-time co-authoring where multiple people can work in the same doc with changes saved live.
A learning platform should give you the same kind of working rhythm—without content scattering across folders.
A simple workflow you can copy (45–90 minutes to set up)
If you want the short version, do this:
- Pick the topic owner (final call)
- Write the “agreed approach” paragraph (the “one way”)
- Create a template with the explanation structure
- Split the topic into parts and assign owners
- Draft (parallel or sequence)
- Editor pass for consistency
- SME accuracy review
- Publish + set a review date (for policy/process changes)
That’s it. No heroics required—just clarity.
Where Tribal Habits fits (and why SMEs like it)
Tribal Habits was built around a common reality: organisations don’t have spare L&D teams, but they do have internal experts.
When you’re coordinating multiple SMEs, Tribal Habits makes the job easier because you can:
- give multiple SMEs access to create or edit the same topic
- build topics in a shared structure (so voice stays consistent)
- keep everything in one place (not scattered across docs, slides, and inboxes)
- turn existing internal material into online training faster (especially useful when SMEs are time-poor)
If your expertise is currently trapped in PowerPoints and folders, a practical first step is to digitise one topic with 2–3 SMEs, get it live, then build from there. Book a demo, and we’ll show you a clean way to set this up without turning it into a big internal project.
FAQ: Working with multiple subject matter experts
Can two SMEs write the same topic together?
Yes—if you first agree on the standard approach and assign clear sections. Without those two steps, you’ll get overlap and contradictions.
What if SMEs disagree on the “right way”?
Pick a topic owner who can make the final call. If the organisation genuinely has multiple accepted methods, teach it as a decision tree (when to use method A vs method B).
Should SMEs also write assessments?
They can provide scenarios and “common mistakes”, but keep the actual question writing with an editor or learning admin. That’s how you keep question style consistent.
How do you stop SME projects from dragging on?
Use milestones (outline → first draft → review → publish) and assign an editor who can chase gaps, reduce rewrites, and keep the topic moving.
