In this guide
- Write the friction in ordinary language Describe what is difficult, for whom and in which learning situation. “People need better training” is too broad. “In a fictional rehearsal, readers could not identify which version of the desk reference applied” is narrower. Be clear about whether the observation came from a real authorized process, a hypothetical exercise or your own uncertainty.
- Separate explanation from evidence You might think the problem is a confusing layout, but that is a hypothesis. Other explanations could include a changed procedure, an audience mismatch or a source that nobody owns. List the plausible alternatives before choosing a tool.
- State the smallest review request Ask for permission to discuss the problem, review the approved source or rehearse a fictional example. Do not present a request for conversation as permission to deploy a change. A source review, usability exercise and live workflow test are different activities.
- Keep the decision record honest Record whether the idea was discussed, accepted for further review, declined or approved for a specifically bounded next step. Those states are not interchangeable. A positive reaction is not a project authorization or a funding commitment.
- Sources and scope
A clever solution can arrive before the problem has been described. A new video, checklist or application may sound attractive, yet the difficulty could be an unclear source, a missing explanation or a scheduling constraint. Northwell's public 2025 Innovation Challenge report offers an example of ideas receiving formal review. It does not make an informal learning idea approved for use.
Write the friction in ordinary language Describe what is difficult, for whom and in which learning situation. “People need better training” is too broad. “In a fictional rehearsal, readers could not identify which version of the desk reference applied” is narrower. Be clear about whether the observation came from a real authorized process, a hypothetical exercise or your own uncertainty.
Do not start collecting patient, employee or performance data to prove the point without the appropriate permission. Even a small survey or spreadsheet can create privacy and governance questions. Ask the responsible manager how a concern should be documented.
Separate explanation from evidence You might think the problem is a confusing layout, but that is a hypothesis. Other explanations could include a changed procedure, an audience mismatch or a source that nobody owns. List the plausible alternatives before choosing a tool.
An original example: a team cannot find a current instruction quickly. A new one-page guide might help, but it might also add another outdated copy. A better initial question is where the authoritative version lives and who maintains it.
State the smallest review request Ask for permission to discuss the problem, review the approved source or rehearse a fictional example. Do not present a request for conversation as permission to deploy a change. A source review, usability exercise and live workflow test are different activities.
AHRQ's plain-language resource can help identify complex wording in public examples. It cannot determine which internal terms are mandatory or which changes the employer will accept. Preserve required meaning and have the owner review any proposed simplification.
Keep the decision record honest Record whether the idea was discussed, accepted for further review, declined or approved for a specifically bounded next step. Those states are not interchangeable. A positive reaction is not a project authorization or a funding commitment.
If the idea does not proceed, capture the reason only where permitted. You may have learned that the original process serves a dependency you had not seen. That is useful learning even without a new product or procedure.
Sources and scope
Public sources checked October 5, 2026. Dated accounts remain historical; examples and planning methods in this article are original editorial constructions.
- Northwell: 2025 Innovation Challenge
Historical 2025 competition context; no current submission window, funding promise or approval to test an idea is inferred.
- AHRQ: Plain Language Words
Examples of everyday vocabulary; editorial job-aid exercises are original and not official Northwell materials.