The original CFIR (Laura J. Damschroder et al. 2009) elaborated on this construct, stating that how an innovation is designed, including how it is assembled, bundled, and presented, can have an important effect on implementation outcomes (Klein, Conn, and Sorra 2001). Innovation design includes how well the components of the innovation are defined, the effectiveness of branding (Evans and Hastings 2008), and the quality of the materials associated with the innovation, e.g., marketing and training materials. This construct was not included in Greenhalgh et al.’s model (T. Greenhalgh, Robert, et al. 2004), but is included in Grol and Wensing’s list of innovation characteristics (R. P. Grol et al. 2007). When innovation components are designed to be easily accessible to deliverers, it promotes use of the new procedures (Graham and Logan 2004). An unreliable or poorly designed innovation will undermine success (Klein, Conn, and Sorra 2001). When innovation quality is perceived to be poor by deliverers, there are negative consequences for satisfaction and innovation use (C. D. Helfrich et al. 2007; Klein, Conn, and Sorra 2001). More recent literature highlights that innovations that incorporate user-centered design principles, i.e., that were developed with deliverer involvement, may be more effective than other innovations (Dopp et al. 2019a; Trisha Greenhalgh et al. 2016).