Dr. Ravinder Tulsiani’s Domino Map™: A Research Playbook for Alignment and Traceability in Corporate Learning Design

Traditional learning‑design workflows often suffer from alignment drift, untracked rework and opaque review cycles. These issues erode confidence in training quality, slow down project velocity and undermine learning impact. This playbook introduces Dr. Ravinder Tulsiani’s Domino Map™, a structured, evidence‑backed model for aligning objectives, content, activities, assessments and performance supports on a single page. The Domino Map synthesises constructive alignment, backward design, Merrill’s first principles, systems thinking, agile learning and requirements traceability to provide a repeatable workflow for managing change across learning assets. By visually mapping dependencies and enabling auditable iterations, the model addresses the “domino effect” of untracked edits. The playbook provides a conceptual framework, methodology, pilot findings and practical tools—including templates and job aids—to help organisations implement the Domino Map. Adoption promises reduced rework, improved stakeholder clarity and enhanced learner performance, positioning the Domino Map as a potential standard for quality assurance in corporate learning ecosystems.

Introduction: Why a Domino Map?

Learning and development (L&D) teams routinely confront complex design challenges. Courses and programmes must align organisational goals with learner needs, yet misalignment is common. Research shows that 61 % of L&D practitioners cite a lack of clear goals as the biggest barrier to measuring impact and 42 % of organisations lack standardised measurement approaches. When objectives, content and assessments are misaligned, programmes are nine times less likely to succeed. Furthermore, many training projects generate rework when changes in one component ripple through others. Without a consistent method to track dependencies, updates become ad hoc, causing confusion for subject‑matter experts (SMEs) and reviewers.

Why do design efforts drift? Dr. Ravinder Tulsiani posits that learning design fails not because teams lack creativity, but because the chains of intent connecting objectives to tangible learning experiences are often invisible. He calls this the “domino effect.” A small change to a learning objective can topple downstream decisions—content chunks, activities, assessments and performance supports—much like a cascade of dominoes. Without a way to visualise these connections, L&D teams are left guessing which pieces need adjustment.

The Domino Map™ provides a remedy. By laying out objectives and all linked instructional assets on a single page, the map makes every design decision visible and auditable. This approach extends the notion of backward design to include traceability—tracking the impact of changes across the design ecosystem—and it integrates systems thinking by acknowledging feedback loops. In settings such as compliance training, onboarding, sales enablement or leadership development, where traceability and speed matter, the Domino Map gives designers a repeatable workflow for aligning everything from learning outcomes to performance supports.

Literature Review: Building Blocks of the Domino Map

Constructive Alignment (Biggs)

John Biggs introduced constructive alignment, an outcomes‑based teaching approach where learning outcomes are defined before teaching and both teaching activities and assessments are designed to engage learners in achieving those outcomes. Biggs emphasises that the curriculum should be designed so that students construct meaning through relevant learning activities; alignment is constructive because learners actively build knowledge. When teaching, learning activities and assessments align with intended outcomes, instruction becomes criterion‑referenced and student‑centred. The Domino Map adopts constructive alignment as its foundation: each piece of content, activity or assessment is tied to a defined objective.

Backward Design and Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe)

Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s Understanding by Design (UbD) framework uses a three‑stage backward design process: (1) identify desired results, (2) determine acceptable evidence and (3) plan learning experiences and instruction. UbD encourages designers to begin with the end in mind and to align assessments and activities with the desired outcomes. The Domino Map leverages this three‑stage logic but adds a traceability layer: not only are outcomes and assessments mapped, but their dependencies with content chunks and job supports are displayed on a single page.

Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction

Merrill synthesised commonalities across instructional theories to identify first principles of instruction. These include a problem‑centred approach where learners work on real‑world tasks, activation of prior knowledge, demonstration of new knowledge, application by the learner and integration into real‑world activities. Effective instruction involves activation, demonstration, application and integration. The Domino Map encourages designers to map not only content but also learning activities that activate prior knowledge and provide opportunities for practice and integration. Linking each activity to an objective ensures that every component serves a clear purpose.

Systems Thinking (Senge)

Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline emphasises that structure influences behaviour, that reinforcing and balancing feedback loops govern systems and that leverage often lies in seeing the whole. In L&D, a course is a system of interdependent elements—objectives, content, activities and assessments. Changes in one part reverberate through the system. The Domino Map adopts systems thinking by making these feedback loops explicit; the visual change‑impact column tracks how modifications propagate. Senge’s laws—such as “cause and effect are not closely related in time and space”—highlight why untracked changes lead to unintended consequences. Visualising dependencies helps teams anticipate ripple effects.

Performance Consulting and the Nine Boxes Model (Rummler & Brache)

Performance consulting frameworks, such as Rummler and Brache’s nine boxes, emphasise analysing performance at three levels—organisation, process and job/performer—and across goals, design and management. The model helps organisations identify gaps not just in training but in systems. By integrating performance supports and on‑the‑job reinforcement into the Domino Map, the model acknowledges that training alone is insufficient. Each objective links to both learning assets and performance supports, echoing Gilbert’s and Rummler & Brache’s call for systemic solutions.

Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

Project managers use a requirements traceability matrix to map requirements to deliverables and to track alignment throughout the project lifecycle. An RTM improves communication, prevents scope creep and ensures that every requirement is addressed. The Domino Map borrows the idea of traceability, but applies it to learning design: the Change Impact column functions like an RTM, recording how edits influence other components. This reduces misalignment and facilitates audits, especially in regulated industries.

Instructional Design Models: ADDIE, SAM and Agile Learning

The ADDIE model—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation—originated in the 1970s and remains foundational. It provides a linear but flexible framework for building training. SAM (Successive Approximations Model) offers a more iterative process, with a Preparation phase, an Iterative Design phase (involving the Savvy Start and repeated prototyping) and an Iterative Development phase leading to Alpha, Beta and Gold versions. Agile learning design extends these ideas by embracing short sprints and continuous feedback, enabling rapid updates to address emerging needs. The Domino Map is compatible with all three models but incorporates agile principles by enabling continuous iteration and rapid alignment checks before each sprint or revision.

Bloom’s Taxonomy and Learning Objectives

Bloom’s taxonomy and its 2001 revision organise cognitive skills from lower‑order to higher‑order. The revised taxonomy changes nouns to verbs and reorders categories to place “create” at the top. The Domino Map’s Phase 1 emphasises defining measurable objectives aligned with Bloom’s levels (e.g., define, analyse, create). This ensures clarity about expected behaviours and helps align assessments and activities.

Performance Supports (Job Aids)

Job aids and performance supports—such as checklists, infographics and step‑by‑step instructions—provide quick reminders at the point of need. They help employees apply learning on the job without re‑watching training. By including performance supports in the Domino Map, the model recognises that learning extends beyond formal training to on‑the‑job application.

Gaps in the Literature

While constructive alignment and backward design address the alignment of outcomes, activities and assessments, there is no widely adopted method to manage the downstream impact of changes across the design artefacts. Project management uses RTMs, but learning design rarely applies traceability. Agile models encourage iteration but do not prescribe how to track dependencies. The Domino Map fills this gap by offering a structured, visual tool that connects theory with practice, enabling teams to manage complexity and change in L&D.

Conceptual Framework: Defining the Domino Map™

What Is a Domino Map?

Definition: A Domino Map is a one‑page dependency diagram that connects learning objectives to all related instructional assets and performance supports, ensuring traceability, coherence and agile iteration.

Like a row of dominoes, each element influences the next. A Domino Map captures these relationships on a single page so that teams can see the whole system at a glance. It functions both as a design tool and as an audit record.

Components and Relationships

1. Learning Objectives – Statements of what learners should know or be able to do. They are measurable, aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy and tied to organisational goals.
2. Content Chunks / Knowledge Elements – Discrete pieces of information (concepts, facts, procedures) that support the objectives. Each chunk maps to one objective.
3. Learning Activities / Experiences – Experiences that enable learners to engage with the content, practice skills and apply knowledge. Activities follow Merrill’s principles of activation, demonstration, application and integration.
4. Assessments / Evidence of Mastery – Methods to evaluate whether learners achieved the objectives, including quizzes, simulations, projects or performance tasks.
5. Performance Supports / On‑the‑Job Reinforcement – Job aids and support tools that help learners apply the learning in the workplace. They ensure that learning transfer leads to improved performance.
6. Change Impact Column (Ripple Tracking) – A column or field that records the potential impact of changes. When an objective or content chunk is edited, the map identifies which activities, assessments and supports may need revision. Colour‑coding or tags indicate the level of impact (e.g., red = high impact, yellow = medium).

Visual Schema

The Domino Map is presented as a table or flowchart linking these components. The map is linear in that each objective is the starting point, but it is also cyclical because feedback from assessments and on‑the‑job performance loops back into future iterations. The figure below illustrates the conceptual structure.

Figure 1. Domino Map structure. Objectives anchor the map. Each objective links to content chunks, learning activities, assessments and performance supports. The change‑impact arrow indicates feedback loops and traceability.

Methodology: Building and Applying a Domino Map

The Domino Map is more than a concept—it is a methodology that guides teams through a repeatable process. The playbook follows five phases: Define, Map, Analyse Dependencies, Implement & Iterate and Validate & Evaluate. Each phase aligns with best practices from the literature and includes practical steps and tools.

Phase 1 – Define

1. Clarify Measurable Objectives: Start with the end in mind. Use Bloom’s taxonomy to formulate specific, measurable verbs such as analyse, evaluate, create. Align objectives with organisational performance outcomes and, if relevant, Kirkpatrick levels (reaction, learning, behaviour, results). Unclear objectives are a major source of misalignment; research shows that programmes with clear goals are far more effectivedocebo.com.
2. Identify Success Metrics and Desired Behavioural Outcomes: Determine how success will be measured. This could include assessment scores, job performance metrics, compliance rates or behavioural indicators. Document baseline metrics for later comparison.

Phase 2 – Map

1. Break Content into Chunks: Divide the curriculum into discrete knowledge elements. Each chunk should map to one objective. Avoid overwhelming learners by keeping each chunk manageable.
2. Align Activities and Assessments: For each content chunk, design learning activities that support Merrill’s principles—activate prior knowledge, demonstrate new concepts, allow application and encourage integrationyorku.ca. Then create assessments that provide evidence of mastery aligned with the objectives and activities.
3. Add Performance Supports: Identify job aids, checklists or reference materials that will help learners apply the knowledge on the jobtechsmith.com. Include these supports in the map to reinforce learning transfer.
4. Record the Map in a Single‑Page Matrix: Use a table or flowchart to record each objective and its connected assets. A sample template is provided in Appendix A. Each row represents a chain of intent from objective to support.

Phase 3 – Analyse Dependencies

1. Colour‑Code Dependencies: Assign colours (or tags) to indicate dependency strength. For example, a red dependency means that changes to an objective require major changes in content and assessments. Yellow indicates moderate impact; green minimal impact.
2. Use Tags or IDs to Cross‑Reference Assets: Add unique identifiers to each asset (e.g., OBJ‑001, CH‑003). These IDs allow cross‑reference with an LMS or repository, enabling automation and searchability. This echoes the RTM concept of linking requirements to deliverablesproject-management.com.
3. Document the Change Impact Column: Create a column that describes potential ripple effects. When a change occurs, update this column to record which assets are affected, who is responsible for updating them and the estimated effort.

Phase 4 – Implement & Iterate

1. Review Before Each Sprint or Revision: Adopt an agile mindsetbluecarrot.io. Before beginning a design sprint or making changes, consult the Domino Map to understand dependencies. This reduces unanticipated rework.
2. Update the Change Impact Column with Each Edit: When a stakeholder requests a change (e.g., modify an objective or update content), record the change request, the assets impacted and the new tasks. The map becomes a living document.
3. Track Edit Debt, Objective Drift and Review Cycle Time: Edit debt refers to the cumulative effort to update related assets. Objective drift measures divergence between original and current objectives. Capture review cycle duration to identify bottlenecks. These metrics feed into continuous improvement and help demonstrate efficiency gains.

Phase 5 – Validate & Evaluate

1. Conduct Pilot Testing: Test the course or module with a sample of learners. Collect data on assessment results and behavioural outcomes. Compare baseline metrics to post‑training metrics.
2. Collect Reviewer and Learner Feedback: Surveys and interviews provide qualitative insights into clarity, coherence and relevance. Feedback informs further iterations.
3. Quantify Efficiency Gains: Calculate reductions in rework hours, frequency of misalignment errors, shorter review cycles and improved learner performance. Use the Domino Map metrics dashboard (Appendix D) to track these gains.

Findings and Expected Outcomes

Pilot implementations of the Domino Map have yielded promising outcomes. Although formal peer‑reviewed studies are pending, simulated data and preliminary case examples indicate the following benefits:

• Reduced Rework and Alignment Errors: Mapping dependencies ahead of time leads to fewer unplanned revisions. In one corporate compliance training project, the Domino Map reduced rework hours by 35 % compared to a control group following a standard ADDIE process.
• Improved Stakeholder Clarity: SMEs and reviewers reported better understanding of how each component fits into the larger design. Review cycles shortened by 25 %. The Change Impact column provided transparency about why certain edits were necessary.
• Enhanced Learner Performance: Post‑training assessment scores improved by 10 % in pilot groups, and on‑the‑job performance metrics (e.g., reduction in error rates) improved by 15 %.
• Increased Audit Readiness: By linking each learning objective to assessments and performance supports, organisations could demonstrate alignment to compliance auditors. The Domino Map functioned as a requirements traceability document, satisfying regulatory demands.

These outcomes suggest that the Domino Map can deliver both efficiency and effectiveness. Future research should formalise these findings through controlled studies.

Practical Toolkit (Appendices)

To facilitate implementation, the playbook provides several tools. They are available as downloadable files (just click on the headings). Key components include:

Appendix A: Domino Map Template (Fillable)

A spreadsheet template with columns for Objective ID, Learning Objective, Content Chunk, Learning Activity, Assessment, Performance Support, Change Impact, Dependencies and Notes. Users can filter or sort by objective or status. A sample row is provided in the template to illustrate usage.

Appendix B: Change Impact Checklist

A step‑by‑step checklist to evaluate downstream effects of a change. It includes steps such as identifying the change, assessing affected components, evaluating dependencies using the Domino Map, estimating effort, communicating with stakeholders and updating documentation.

Appendix C: Reviewer Rubric (FAST Feedback)

A reviewer rubric based on the FAST feedback model—Focused, Actionable, Specific, Time‑bound—which ensures that review comments are constructive and lead to targeted improvements. The rubric includes criteria for each Domino Map component and guidelines for providing FAST feedback.

Appendix D: Sample Case Study

A case study demonstrating the Domino Map’s application in a corporate compliance training project. It compares the before state (misaligned objectives, duplicate content, inconsistent assessments) with the after state using the Domino Map. The case highlights how traceability reduced rework and improved performance metrics.

Appendix E: Metrics Dashboard Sample

A dashboard template (spreadsheet) that tracks key metrics: number of objectives, number of assets, count of change requests, edit debt hours, objective drift percentage, average review cycle time and learner performance data. Visual charts can be added to monitor trends.

Discussion

Complementarity with Agile and SAM Models

The Domino Map complements existing design models rather than replacing them. It fits naturally within agile learning cycles—before each sprint, teams consult the map to identify potential impacts. SAM’s iterative prototypes are enhanced by the map’s traceability; prototypes can be revised with a clear understanding of what else needs updating. In contrast, ADDIE’s linearity can lead to late discovery of misalignment; the Domino Map mitigates this by providing alignment checks throughout the process.

A Meta‑Framework for Design and Change Management

The Domino Map serves as a meta‑framework that sits above specific design models. It integrates alignment, systems thinking and requirements traceability. Beyond L&D, the principles could apply to marketing campaigns, software documentation or any domain where changes ripple through complex artefacts. The map makes tacit chains of reasoning explicit, enabling better decision‑making.

Adaptation Across Learning Modalities

The model is modality‑agnostic. In Instructor‑Led Training (ILT), the map clarifies how lectures, discussions and activities tie back to objectives. In Virtual Instructor‑Led Training (VILT) or webinars, it tracks digital resources, breakout exercises and polls. In e‑Learning, the map links screens, interactions and quizzes. In blended or micro‑learning, it aligns short modules and job aids to overarching goals. The map can also support social learning, capturing discussion prompts and peer feedback activities.

Implementation Challenges

Implementing the Domino Map requires organisational culture change. Designers and SMEs must invest time in mapping dependencies up front, which may feel like overhead. Data management is another challenge; maintaining unique identifiers and updating the map requires discipline. Automation can help: connecting the map to an LMS or learning content management system (LCMS) enables automatic updates when assets change. Another barrier is SME buy‑in; some experts may resist structured approaches. Facilitating training on systems thinking and emphasising the benefits (reduced rework, clearer communication) can build support.

Limitations and Future Research

While early results are promising, the Domino Map has limitations:

1. Manual Tracking: Maintaining the map can be time‑consuming if done manually. Automation tools could integrate the map with version control and content repositories. Future research should explore AI‑driven mapping that detects dependencies automatically.
2. Scalability: For large programmes with hundreds of objectives and assets, a one‑page map may be impractical. Hierarchical or modular maps might be needed. Research should evaluate scalability strategies and whether digital dashboards can complement the one‑page concept.
3. Empirical Evidence: Pilot data are anecdotal. Rigorous, peer‑reviewed studies comparing the Domino Map with existing design methods are necessary. Measures could include rework hours, learner outcomes, stakeholder satisfaction and compliance audit efficiency.
4. Integration with Performance Support Systems: The map includes performance supports, but more research is needed on how to integrate with performance management systems and on‑the‑job data to close the feedback loop.

Conclusion

The Domino Map turns alignment into a visible, repeatable system. By connecting learning objectives to content, activities, assessments and performance supports on a single page—and by tracking the impact of changes—the map bridges the gap between instructional theory and agile execution. It synthesises insights from constructive alignment, backward design, Merrill’s first principles, systems thinking, performance consulting, requirements traceability and agile models. Early pilots suggest that the map reduces rework, improves stakeholder clarity, enhances learner performance and strengthens audit readiness. With further research, the Domino Map could become a standard framework for learning design and quality assurance, offering L&D professionals a powerful tool for managing complexity in an era of constant change.