scope:

Description of Driving Event:

In the 1995-1996 timeframe the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) began development of a distance learning capability under the umbrella of the Professional Development Initiative (PDI). This distance learning capability eventually evolved from a Safety and Mission Assurance discipline system into the Site for Online Learning and Resources (SOLAR) (http://solar. msfc.nasa.gov), currently one of NASA's primary distance learning resources. Since the intent of the initial development effort was to design and implement a prototype system for the Safety and Mission Assurance discipline a large percentage of the current SOLAR course offerings are Safety and Mission Assurance related. The approximately 70 Safety and Mission Assurance courses available on SOLAR were developed using teams of subject matter experts (SMEs) working in conjunction with the prime contractor (BDM now TRW). After the determination that a SOLAR course needs to be developed a "standard" module development process is followed. The following is a greatly simplified version of that process.

Note: To review the detailed process information for course development as contained within the SOLAR Documentation Suite, contact Feedback and Support on the SOLAR website (https://solar. msfc.nasa.gov). The simplified process is as follows:

1. A Lead SME and supporting SME(s) are identified that can provide the technical content to be contained within the course.

2. The SMEs work with the prime contractor to define the scope of the training course and document that scope in a course synopsis and course roadmap.

3. The SMEs provide the prime contractor with appropriate reference materials to develop an initial draft course.

4. The Lead SME coordinates a detailed technical review of the initial draft course by the supporting SME(s) and provides comments back to the prime contractor.

5. The prime contractor responds to the SME comments and prepares a draft course for SME review and acceptance.

6. The Lead SME coordinates a review of the acceptance draft to evaluate how well the initial comments were incorporated into the acceptance draft and to identify and resolve any remaining concerns/corrections.

7. The prime contractor cleans up any corrections and prepares the course for release.

8. The Lead SME performs a final clerical review of the course and then approves the course for review by the Discipline and Agency Training Administrators.

This process was developed with several goals in mind. First and foremost we wanted to capture knowledge from subject matter experts and capture that knowledge in a form that was readily shared with others. Second, as much as possible, we wanted all courses to represent NASA practice rather than Center specific practices. So the team of SMEs was required to synthesize information concerning individual Center practices into a single course applicable across all of NASA. Third, all of the course materials were to be comprehensive, clear and concise. The teams of SMEs were very successful in meeting these goals as evidenced by the body of courses that are available on the Safety and Mission Assurance portion of SOLAR.

The process of developing courses was not without difficulties. For the most part the SMEs (both Lead SMEs and support SMEs) assigned to support the development of these courses did so on a collateral duty basis. They were assigned to support the course development on a part time or time available basis. This led to problems associated with the contractual schedule for course development. The initial contract task orders were established with very specific schedule milestones for the contractor to meet during the course development process. Since the SMEs were not exclusively assigned to support course development activities it was in many cases difficult, if not impossible, for the teams of SMEs to meet review deadlines. The Project Manager was subsequently required to spend more of her time focusing on shepherding the SMEs through the course development process and less on the overall project.

It also became clear that while the SMEs were truly experts in their specific fields, their experience in developing training or course materials (especially web-based training), using the web, and working on this specific contract varied from none to minimal. This necessitated the development of an education process for all SMEs to define their roles and responsibilities, explain the development process and clarify the schedule requirements. This information was provided to the SMEs in a hardcopy package prior to the initial course development teleconference and was then discussed at length during the initial course development teleconference.

Making adjustments to the course development process such as establishing the government review periods based on the availability of the SMEs and providing the SMEs with a "formal" education in the contractually specified course development process improved productivity.

Of note was one unexpected outcome of the use of SMEs from various Centers to develop consensus course materials. In many cases, there were no documented Agency level standard practices related to the topics covered in the courses. The release of the courses in some cases served to informally document these standard practices.