Alternatives to the innovation can include the status quo, i.e., the practice, treatment, or program that the innovation supersedes, as well as an alternative innovation (E. Rogers 2003). The original CFIR (Laura J. Damschroder et al. 2009) elaborated on this construct, stating that relative advantage must be recognized and acknowledged by all individuals for effective implementation (T. Greenhalgh, Robert, et al. 2004). If deliverers perceive a clear, unambiguous advantage in effectiveness or efficiency of the innovation, it is more likely the implementation will be successful. In fact, relative advantage is sine qua non for adoption and implementation (T. Greenhalgh, Robert, et al. 2004).
Benefits of the innovation must be clearly visible (observable) to assess relative advantage; efforts to demonstrate benefits of the innovation clearly will help implementation (Denis et al. 2002; Dopson et al. 2010; T. Greenhalgh, Robert, et al. 2004; R. P. Grol et al. 2007; Meyer and Goes 1988). Although Greenhalgh et al., the PRISM model, and Grol et al.’s implementation model include observability as a separate construct (Feldstein and Glasgow 2008; T. Greenhalgh, Robert, et al. 2004; R. P. Grol et al. 2007), observability (or visibility) of benefits is tightly coupled with relative advantage and it is challenging to measure them separately in the real world. As a result, CFIR consolidates the two factors.
The extent to which the innovation is codifiable may also influence relative advantage; many innovations contain significant tacit components and may have significant benefits that are more difficult to understand or discern (Berta and Baker 2004; Tucker, Nembhard, and Edmondson 2007) and thus evaluate for relative advantage.