Skip to main content

Governance, security & trust

K
Written by Kristian Luoma
Updated over a month ago

Execution systems only work if people trust them. In Parallel is built to preserve trust through clear ownership, explicit visibility, and security controls that match modern enterprise expectations.

In this article

  • What “trust” means in In Parallel

  • Governance principles (ownership, visibility, accountability)

  • Security & compliance posture

  • Best practices for safe rollout

  • Common concerns (and how to address them)


What “trust” means in In Parallel

In Parallel exists to maintain shared execution reality over time.
That only works if users trust that:

  • the plan reflects reality, not automation artifacts

  • changes aren’t happening silently

  • ownership is clear

  • visibility is appropriate

  • the system is secure

Practically, trust in In Parallel comes from two design choices:

  1. execution truth is traceable (via snapshots and decision history), and

  2. control stays with humans (review/confirmation is part of the loop).


Governance principles

1) Clear ownership

In Parallel is structured around execution scopes—bounded areas of responsibility (team, project, program, portfolio, account, business area).
A scope works best when one person is accountable for its outcomes.

This matters because execution drift typically comes from implied ownership:

  • “someone is on it”

  • “we decided… I think”

  • “I thought you owned that”

In Parallel helps keep ownership explicit so accountability doesn’t disappear.

2) Visibility by role (members vs stakeholders)

A healthy scope separates:

  • members (people doing the work / owning actions)

  • stakeholders (people who need visibility, not operational detail)

This protects psychological safety and avoids turning the plan into a performance artifact.

3) Change is explicit (not silent)

Execution plans update as work evolves, and snapshots make those updates visible and reviewable.
This is a governance safeguard: it prevents “plan flicker” and makes execution evolution attributable.

4) Decisions preserve the “why”

In Parallel’s decisions log records what was decided, why, by whom, and what changed as a result.
That prevents decision re-litigation and makes stakeholder communication defensible.


Security & compliance posture

In Parallel is built with enterprise-grade governance and compliance in mind, including:

  • account-based access control

  • SOC 2 / ISO-aligned security

  • GDPR-compliant data handling

It also supports governance-by-default patterns (RBAC/ABAC) aligned with ISO/SOC expectations.

These measures are meant to support real-world rollout requirements: controlled access, auditable behavior, and clear data handling standards.


Best practices for safe rollout

Start with one scope

Pilot In Parallel in a single scope with:

  • clear ownership

  • a recurring meeting cadence

  • a small set of members and stakeholders

This keeps governance simple and lets you establish trust quickly.

Make the report the artifact (not the transcript)

In Parallel can capture meeting signals, but the post-meeting report should be the canonical output:

  • it’s structured

  • it’s confirmable

  • it reduces noise

Make review/confirmation explicit

If you want people to trust the system, make it clear that:

  • AI helps draft and detect

  • humans confirm execution truth

That expectation should be part of onboarding.

Keep scope boundaries tight

Broad scopes create noisy snapshots and invite misinterpretation. Tight scopes produce stable, high-signal execution reality.


Common concerns (and how to address them)

“Is this a surveillance tool?”

No—In Parallel is designed to coordinate execution, not monitor individuals. The governance model emphasizes:

  • accountable ownership for execution items

  • role-appropriate visibility

  • high-signal reporting rather than raw activity feeds

How to address it in rollout

  • explain that the system captures decisions, actions, and risks—not “performance”

  • keep stakeholder visibility high-level

  • avoid sharing raw operational detail widely

“Will AI change the plan without us knowing?”

The system is designed so meaningful changes are reviewable (via reports) and visible (via snapshots).

How to address it

  • teach the report → review → confirm loop as the control point

  • encourage using snapshots as the default “what changed?” view

“Who can see what?”

This depends on your scope setup and access controls. In Parallel supports account-based access control and governance patterns like RBAC/ABAC.

How to address it

  • keep membership intentional

  • clearly distinguish members and stakeholders

  • start with a limited pilot


Related articles

  • Privacy & consent for meeting capture

  • After the meeting: report → review → confirm

  • What are snapshots?

  • Decisions & learning log

Did this answer your question?