The Risk of de-risking innovation

Startups die of paralysis more often than they die of mistakes. This is a truth I've observed repeatedly while working with founders, yet it's surprisingly hard for many to internalize. The reason, I think, lies in our natural aversion to risk and our often-misguided attempt to prevent all possible failures.

Why over-planning kills innovation

The biggest risk in innovation isn't failure—it's the illusion of control.

This becomes evident when you look at how large organizations try to "de-risk" their innovation efforts. They create elaborate frameworks, detailed documentation requirements, and multi-level approval processes. All of these, paradoxically, increase the very risk they're trying to minimize.

Corporate ventures paradox

I've watched this pattern repeat itself across companies and industries. A corporate innovation lab or venture builder starts with good intentions. They want to innovate like startups while leveraging their corporate advantages. But then something predictable happens: the corporate antibodies kick in. Someone asks, "Shouldn't we document this process?" Another suggests, "We need a governance framework." Soon, they're drowning in what I would like to call innovation theater—elaborate rituals that make people feel safe but actually prevent real progress.

The risk of being left out

A corporate venture builder required six different departmental approvals before shipping any feature. Their "de-risking" process included a 40-page change management document, three steering committee reviews, and sign-off from departments that would never interact with the product. By the time they got all approvals, their competitor had shipped three iterations of the same feature and captured the market. The risk they were trying to avoid was smaller than the risk they created through delay.

Speed: a form of risk-management

The core insight about shipping that most organizations miss is that speed itself is a form of risk management. When you ship quickly and frequently, each deployment carries less risk because you're changing less at once. It's the difference between walking across a stream on many small stones versus trying to leap across in one big jump.

This brings us to the one-way door versus two-way door metaphor. Most product decisions are two-way doors—you can walk back through them if needed. Yet organizations often treat every decision as a one-way door, adding unnecessary friction to their development process. They don't realize that in today's digital world, very few decisions are truly irreversible.

Here's what actually works:

1. Minimize approval chains by classifying decisions based on reversibility. Two-way door decisions should have minimal or no approval requirements.

2. Replace change management documents with change logs. Document what you did, not what you might do.

3. Create feedback loops instead of approval loops. Build relationships with legal, finance, and security teams so they can advise rather than just approve.

4. Ship in smaller increments. The smaller the change, the lower the risk, and the faster you can learn.

5. Use feature flags and gradual rollouts instead of big-bang releases. This gives you control without sacrificing speed.

Good QA = Fast Recovery & Quick Iteration

Quality assurance is another area where organizations often stumble. They think extensive QA before shipping reduces risk. But good QA isn't about perfect testing—it's about fast recovery and quick iteration. The best teams have automated testing and quick rollback procedures that let them ship confidently and fix quickly if needed.

The most successful corporate venture builders I've seen operate more like embassies than colonies. They maintain diplomatic relations with the parent company while operating under their own, more agile laws. They understand that the goal isn't to eliminate risk—it's to make risks small enough that they can be taken frequently and recovered from quickly.

Operate more like embassies than colonies

This requires a mindset shift. Instead of asking "How can we prevent anything from going wrong?" ask "How quickly can we detect and fix things when they go wrong?" Instead of seeking perfect information before deciding, seek ways to learn quickly from small decisions.

The startups that win aren't the ones that never make mistakes—they're the ones that learn quickly from small mistakes while their competitors are still planning how to avoid them. They understand that in the fast-moving world of technology, perfect is not just the enemy of good—it's often the enemy of survival.

Most importantly, they understand that not shipping is a decision that carries its own risks—usually bigger ones than shipping imperfectly. Market opportunities disappear. Team morale erodes. Learning is delayed. These are the hidden costs of over-planning, and they're usually higher than the cost of the mistakes you're trying to prevent.

Concluding note:

So, what's the solution? Ship more but ship smaller. Build trust through consistency rather than comprehensive planning. Create systems that make recovery easy rather than failure impossible. And remember that in innovation, the biggest risk isn't making mistakes—it's moving too slowly to matter.