How Subject Matter Expert workload really functions in HE/VET (and where purpose-built LX support fits)

In Australian Higher Education (HE) and VET, there’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to how Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) contribute to course design. At some providers, academics and trainers still lead the entire process (designing, building, testing, and documenting courses end to end). Others have specialist LX teams in place to share that load. Most sit somewhere in the middle, working with hybrid models that reflect their people, platforms, and priorities.

This isn’t about which model is “right.”

However, each one comes with real implications for workload, compliance, and quality, and the evidence makes that impossible to ignore.

The reality: SME responsibilities have expanded beyond teaching

Many universities set out SME responsibilities with more clarity than people often expect. In several cases, academics are not only guiding the learning, but also: 

• establishing and managing the LMS site
• shaping assessment
• maintaining documentation
• keeping an eye on quality signals across the teaching period.

For example, subject coordinator guidelines at one Australian university outline responsibility for LMS setup and renewal, ensuring minimum content is present, and maintaining curriculum relevance and benchmarking(1)(14). At another institution, course coordinator schedules highlight the need to ensure courses are available in the LMS and actively managed throughout delivery(2)(4).

This isn’t just a story about workload. It’s about how the role is evolving. As digital learning has expanded, SMEs have become central to both the academic and operational sides of course delivery.

VET makes this even clearer. Trainers and assessors aren’t just delivering… They’re designing assessment tools, maintaining mapping documentation, and contributing to formal validation under ASQA requirements(20)(6)(7)(5)(21).

It’s important work. It also accumulates quickly.

We’ve seen it across digital transformation research. Teaching staff are picking up more digital and admin tasks, but without the workload allocation to match(9).

And LMS transition studies have been saying the quiet part out loud for years. Learning a new system and rebuilding a course doesn’t just take “a few hours.” In some cases, it takes almost a year per course(13)(16)(17).

That’s not necessarily about inefficiency. It’s the reality of teaching in a fully digital ecosystem where curriculum, compliance, tech and delivery are no longer separate lanes. They’re all running at once, and educators are expected to keep pace.

SME work looks different depending on institutional maturity

One of the most striking insights from the research? Just how much the SME role shifts depending on where an institution sits on the digital learning maturity curve.

Curious where your institution sits on the digital learning maturity curve?
Take our free, 30-second education digital maturity quiz to get a quick snapshot, plus tailored next steps to help you move forward with confidence.

There’s no single model, but a spectrum. And where you land on that spectrum shapes everything: workload, compliance risk, student experience. All of it.

1. SME-heavy models

At one end, SMEs carry almost the entire load themselves: building and maintaining LMS sites, uploading materials, managing accessibility, designing assessments, producing mapping, and steering review cycles(14)(1)(3)(4)(2)(20)(6)(7). It’s an “academics-as-end-to-end-producers” model often born from necessity, not design.

1. Shared models (SME + LX)

Then there’s the middle ground. Here, SMEs lead on the intellectual and pedagogical decisions, while LX or academic practice teams help with LMS builds, documentation, mapping, QA and accessibility(1)(14)(12)(10)(15).

This model tends to emerge as institutions recognise two truths:

1. digital learning is too complex for a single role to hold, and
2. consistency needs infrastructure.

3. LX-led models

And at the other end, LX teams run a genuine service model. They own templates, shells, documentation, QA processes, accessibility and production. SMEs focus on content expertise and the decisions only they can make(12)(10)(11)(25). It’s the closest our sector gets to a “division of labour” model, and it often delivers the most predictable quality uplift.

You can see this variation written directly into institutional policy. Some LMS frameworks assign development, testing and risk management to institutional committees, meaning academics contribute rather than build(26)(10). Others expect coordinators to manually prepare course sites at every offering(15)(3).

It’s a wide spread, and an important one because these models are workload decisions, quality decisions, and ultimately strategic decisions about how an institution supports its people and protects its compliance posture.

Why the boundary between SME responsibilities and LX responsibilities has blurred

The move to digital learning didn’t just change how we teach. It reshaped who ends up doing the work. Tasks that sit between pedagogy, tech, and compliance often fall to SMEs, not because they’re the best fit, but because someone has to get it done for the course to run.

And research shows exactly where this happens:

LMS configuration and content preparation

Many subject coordinator procedures now expect academics to renew LMS shells, upload materials, and ensure everything’s live before teaching starts(3)(14). LMS policies also require academic units to keep sites aligned with curriculum systems(15).

Accessibility

Accessibility may sit at policy level, but in SME-heavy models, the practical work (captioning, formatting, alt text) often falls to whoever’s uploading content. That’s usually the SME(25)(15).

Assessment mapping and validation

Assessment mapping is described as essential for compliance and directly tied to trainer and assessor duties in many RTOs(20)(6)(7)(16).

Documentation and monitoring

Academic governance and review procedures require annual monitoring, updates to subject information, and submission of evidence to committees(3)(22)(4)(23)(2).

These aren’t “nice to have” extras.
They’re critical to quality and compliance.

But here’s the catch…
Many were never explicitly built into academic workload.

Welcome to the grey zone

SMEs hold the pedagogical authority but also carry fragments of production, design, documentation, and QA.

These are the kinds of tasks that increasingly align with LX roles. But in many institutions, they’re still sitting with the educator.

That’s the blurred line we’re navigating now and the decision point for how we structure, support, and sustain digital learning.

The business case for clarifying roles

This isn’t necessarily about academics doing less.

It’s about making roles clearer to reduce workload pressure, regulatory risk, and costly rework.

And the evidence backs it every time.

Workload risk

Digital transformation research highlights a clear pattern: administrative and digital responsibilities are increasing, often without corresponding workload allocation(9).

LMS migration studies echo this, showing that system transitions require significant time, along with additional support, training, and redesign resourcing(13)(16)(17).

These shifts don’t just impact individual roles, but shape the overall sustainability of course delivery.

Regulatory risk

TEQSA expects evidence of coherent course design, aligned assessment, active monitoring, and equivalence across modes, all of which depend on clear design processes, consistent templates, and robust QA systems(3)(1)(23).

ASQA takes a similar line: assessment systems must be documented, mapped, validated, and ready for risk-based moderation(20)(21)(7).

But when documentation lives across inboxes, LMS shells, and ad hoc revisions, audit readiness starts to slip, not because people aren’t working hard, but because the system isn’t working for them.

Quality and consistency risk

When central LX support is in place, the difference shows:

• clearer templates
• standardised design
• structured approvals
• less SME time spent on technical tasks(11)(10).

Without that infrastructure, design decisions happen course by course, leading to inconsistency, duplication, and rework that could be avoided.

Project delivery risk

We’ve seen it in the research on LMS migrations(13)(18)(19): large-scale transitions and curriculum uplifts stall when governance is unclear, templating is inconsistent, and SME time is underestimated.

These aren’t one-off issues, but predictable patterns that are avoidable with the right systems in place.

The business case is practical:

When technical and documentation tasks shift from SMEs to structured LX processes, whether supported in-house or through specialist partners, institutions:

• reduce workload

• strengthen compliance

• lift design quality.

This isn’t about ideology. It’s a pattern we see consistently across HE and VET research.

What this means for institutions making decisions right now

The evidence points to three practical truths:

1. SME-heavy models create hidden workload and uneven quality

Supported by policy documents, workload studies and LMS transition research (14)(1)(3)(9)(13).

2. Shared models work if governance and templates are strong

Supported by co-design literature and institutional guidelines (1)(14)(12)(10).

3. LX-led models protect SME time and strengthen compliance

Supported by LMS policies, role descriptions and quality frameworks (10)(11)(25)(12).

This gives institutions complete permission to choose the model that suits their maturity and resourcing, but with eyes open to the implications.

Where Oppida fits

Oppida supports institutions at every stage of maturity by taking on the tasks that research shows consistently drain time, carry compliance risk, or lead to rework:

• LMS shell builds and configuration
• Assessment design and mapping support
• Documentation and alignment artefacts
• Accessibility implementation and testing
• Structured, time-boxed co-design
• QA, version control and governance artefacts

It’s about letting SMEs do what they do best: make strong intellectual and pedagogical decisions and having the right team in place to carry the production and QA load that’s come with the sector’s digital shift.

If your team is feeling the strain of digital delivery, let’s talk.

Book a free discovery call to explore how we can lighten the load, strengthen compliance, and lift the quality of your offerings without adding pressure to your people:

Reference List

(1) policies.latrobe.edu.au/download.php?id=329&version=4&associated
(2) policies.uq.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=431
(3) policies.latrobe.edu.au/document/view.php?id=164&version=1
(4) sites.rmit.edu.au/dsclt/course-coordinators-guide/
(5) asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/FACT_SHEET_Conducting_validation.pdf?v=1532658700
(6) novacore.com.au/docs/asqa_mapping.pdf
(7) asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/Guide%20to%20assessment%20tools%20v1.1.pdf
(8) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10827755/
(9) knowledge.lancashire.ac.uk/id/eprint/46994/1/3b775ia0aprd1waqlgzgcap1s13a1f0e.pdf
(10) divinity.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LMS-Policy.pdf
(11) policy.federation.edu.au/academic_governance/procedures/learning_and_teaching_technology/ch01.php
(12) search.jobs.wa.gov.au/files/vacancies/733463/22875066.pdf
(13) ojdla.com/archive/summer192/varnell192.pdf
(14) policies.latrobe.edu.au/download.php?id=329&version=1&associated
(15) bond.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/Learning%20Management%20System%20(LMS)%20Policy_INF%206.1.7%20V5%20.pdf
(16) scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=dissertations
(17) eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1106661
(18) liberatelearning.com.au/rmit-online-unit-migration-a-lift-and-a-shift/
(19) catalyst-ca.net/case-studies/monash-university
(20) caqaresources.com.au/blogs/news/the-essential-mapping-document-your-key-to-compliant-effective-assessments
(21) asqa.gov.au/resources/videos/video-understanding-assessment
(22) policies.latrobe.edu.au/download.php?id=328&version=3&associated
(23) adelaide.edu.au/policies/669/?dsn=policy.document%3Bfield%3Ddata%3Bid%3D8025%3Bm%3Dview
(24) governanceinstitute.com.au/app/uploads/2023/11/online-learning-policy.pdf
(25) heli.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/QAF125-LMS-Policy_HELI_v1.1-1.pdf
(26) highereducation.stanleycollege.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Learning-Management-System-Policy_v1.0.pdf