Client Story - Shared Language For Risk and Decision-Making
Moses Adedoyin - Senior Director of Venture Design & Innovation at GuideWell
How Moses Adedoyin Built a Shared Innovation Language Around Risk and Decision-Making with Precoil
When Moses Adedoyin joined GuideWell, he immediately noticed that each team viewed innovation differently.
Some saw it as project management.
Others treated it as a catch-all group for undefined work.
Ideas moved forward, but there was no shared framework for evaluating risk, testing assumptions, or making decisions.
“It felt like there was no methodology, no process, no framework,” Moses recalls. “We just kind of did anything.”
For a large enterprise trying to build new ventures and explore future growth opportunities, that created friction.
Because without a shared system, innovation becomes difficult to scale.
Discovering a Practical Framework for Innovation
At the time, Moses was relatively new to healthcare but came from a strong product management background.
A colleague Kirstie, who later became VP of Innovation, introduced him to Testing Business Ideas.
“She sent me a video snippet from one of David’s masterclasses,” Moses says. “And I was sold.”
What stood out wasn’t just the theory.
It was the practicality.
“I appreciated how business problems were treated like experiments,” he explains. “I had never really thought about it that way before.”
That shift became foundational.
Instead of treating ideas as projects that immediately required investment, the team began treating ideas as assumptions that first needed proof.
Moving From Ideas to Structured De-Risking
One of the biggest mindset shifts for GuideWell was understanding that every new idea carries inherent uncertainty.
The question wasn’t:
“Is this a good idea?”
The question became:
“What are the risks, and how do we systematically reduce them?”
That meant learning how to:
Identify assumptions early
Categorize different types of risk
Separate desirability, viability, and feasibility concerns
Test ideas before committing significant time or capital
Moses describes this structure as transformative for how the team approached venture building.
“Any idea you come up with is inherently risky,” he says. “So what methodology do you use to identify your risk, and how do you put them into different buckets?”
The team began embedding those principles directly into how new ventures were developed.
Embedding Experimentation Into Venture Building
Over time, experimentation became part of GuideWell’s venture-building process itself.
Early-stage ideas were no longer treated as fully validated business opportunities.
Instead, teams worked through a more disciplined sequence:
Frame the assumptions
Identify the riskiest unknowns
Test cheaply and quickly
Generate evidence before scaling investment
That shift changed how conversations happened internally.
Before, business stakeholders often wanted to move immediately into implementation.
“Any idea is already a solution,” Moses explains. “They want to invest millions of dollars and then find out later that it’s not working.”
The new approach challenged that instinct.
Rather than rushing into execution, the team used lightweight experiments to learn before major commitments were made.
“It’s not been easy,” Moses says. “But we’re seeing the benefit of it.”
Creating a Shared Language Across the Enterprise
One of the most important outcomes wasn’t just better experiments.
It was organizational alignment.
As GuideWell’s leadership evolved, the company began adopting a more modern innovation vocabulary around customer jobs, experimentation, and validation.
“We’re speaking the same language now,” Moses says.
That alignment matters inside large organizations.
Because innovation systems fail when teams, executives, and operators define risk differently.
A shared language creates consistency around:
What counts as evidence
When ideas deserve investment
How uncertainty should be managed
What must be validated before scaling
That consistency helps organizations make better decisions faster.
Why Structured De-Risking Matters Even More in the AI Era
One of the most interesting reflections Moses shared was how AI is changing the speed of execution inside organizations.
Today, teams can build functional prototypes faster and cheaper than ever before.
But Moses sees a danger in that acceleration.
Just because teams can build faster doesn’t mean they should skip validation.
“Now because we can build a functional prototype, do we skip all those experiments?” he asks.
In fact, he believes the opposite is true.
As the cost of building decreases, the importance of disciplined decision-making increases.
Because faster execution without structured validation simply allows organizations to scale bad assumptions more quickly.
Moses now actively encourages his teams to slow down long enough to:
Define assumptions first
Clarify risk before building
Maintain rigor even when development becomes inexpensive
“I have to consciously tell my team, don’t go build anything yet,” he says. “Let’s define the assumptions and go through the process.”
Building Decision Readiness Inside the Enterprise
For GuideWell, the real transformation wasn’t just adopting Testing Business Ideas tools.
It was building a repeatable system for how growth decisions get made.
Instead of it being vague or disconnected from the business, experimentation became integrated into venture development and enterprise decision-making.
The organization shifted from funding ideas based on enthusiasm to investing based on validated learning
That shift takes discipline.
It requires leadership alignment, shared language, and a structured approach to de-risking uncertainty.
But once embedded, it fundamentally changes how organizations approach growth bets.
Not by eliminating uncertainty.
But by making it visible early enough to act on it.
Let’s Clarify Your Next Growth Bet
If you’re navigating a high-impact growth decision, request a conversation. We’ll follow up to determine the right next step.
