Skip to main content

Actions and ownership (how tasks work)

K
Written by Kristian Luoma
Updated over a month ago

Actions are how execution moves forward. In Parallel makes actions effective by doing two things consistently:

  1. tying actions to execution context (scope + priorities + decisions), and

  2. making ownership explicit so follow-through doesn’t disappear.

In this article

  • What an action is (in In Parallel)

  • How actions are created

  • How to assign and confirm ownership

  • How actions connect to scopes, plans, and meetings

  • Best practices (and common anti-patterns)


What an action is

An action in In Parallel is a concrete piece of work that:

  • has a clear owner

  • exists inside an execution scope

  • supports a priority or commitment

  • is meant to be followed through (not just “noted”)

Actions are part of the living execution plan, but they’re not meant to replace your delivery tool’s ticket system. Keep delivery detail (subtasks, backlog work, sprint hygiene) in Jira/Asana/etc.

Think of it this way:

  • delivery tools track how work gets done

  • In Parallel tracks what execution is committed to and who owns it


How actions are created

In Parallel is designed to capture actions naturally from how teams already operate.

After a connected meeting:

  • a structured report is published

  • tasks/actions can be assigned

  • the execution plan updates

This means actions typically originate from:

  • commitments made in discussion

  • decisions that require follow-through

  • blockers that need resolution

  • next steps that must be owned

You can also create actions manually when needed—but the best “default” is to let meetings produce candidate actions, then confirm them in the report review step.


Confirm ownership (the most important step)

The most common execution failure isn’t bad intent—it’s ambiguous ownership.

In Parallel works best when every action has:

  • one accountable owner (not “we”)

  • a clear completion condition (what does done mean?)

  • an understood relationship to priorities and commitments

The recommended workflow

  1. Let the report propose actions.

  2. During review, confirm:

    • the action wording is specific

    • the owner is correct

    • it belongs in this scope

  3. Only then treat it as a real execution item.

This reinforces the product’s trust model: the system supports execution judgment, but doesn’t create accountability silently.


How actions connect to the execution plan

Each scope’s execution plan includes goals/commitments, priorities, tasks/milestones, risks/dependencies, ownership, and recent changes.

Actions are most useful when they’re clearly connected to:

  • a priority (“this is how we’re moving the top priority forward”)

  • a decision (“this action exists because we decided X”)

  • a risk (“this action reduces the blocker”)

This context is what makes actions durable. Without it, actions turn into a to-do list with no meaning.


Using actions in your weekly loop

Actions become powerful when they’re part of the same cadence as your execution review:

  • Before the meeting: pre-read highlights what’s stuck / what changed.

  • During the meeting: you make decisions and assign next steps.

  • After the meeting: you confirm actions in the report.

  • Between meetings: you track follow-through in your personal task list across scopes.

That loop is how you stop losing actions between meetings.


Best practices

Keep actions high-signal

If you promote every subtask into In Parallel, the plan gets cluttered and priorities get buried.

Best practice:

  • keep In Parallel actions for accountable, execution-relevant work

  • keep granular breakdowns in delivery tools

Make actions “closeable”

Good actions can be clearly closed. If an action can’t be closed, it’s likely:

  • too vague (“follow up”)

  • missing a deliverable

  • actually a project, not an action

Rewrite until it’s closeable.

Prefer one owner over many collaborators

Collaboration is real, but ownership should still be singular. Many collaborators, no owner = drift.


Common anti-patterns (and fixes)

Anti-pattern: “Someone should…”

Fix:

  • assign an owner or don’t create the action.

Anti-pattern: Actions as meeting notes

Fix:

  • keep “notes” as context in the report; keep “actions” as owned commitments.

Anti-pattern: Duplicating Jira/Asana work

Fix:

  • let Jira/Asana be the detailed system of record

  • keep In Parallel actions as execution commitments tied to priorities and decisions


Related articles

  • After the meeting: report → review → confirm

  • Personal task list (manager dashboard)

  • Decisions & learning log

  • Understand the living execution plan

Did this answer your question?