Compare to
WorkBoard
Instead of aligning OKRs top-down, In Parallel captures what actually happens bottom-up.
Where WorkBoard tells you what the plan should be, In Parallel tells you whether it's being followed.
What are the key differences?
The plan vs the reality
Top-down alignment vs bottom-up intelligence
WorkBoard starts at the top: define company OKRs, cascade them to teams, and track check-ins. This is valuable for strategic alignment. In Parallel starts at the bottom: capture what actually happens in meetings and map it against the execution plan. This is valuable for knowing whether the strategy is being executed.
Quarterly review cycles vs continuous updates
WorkBoard's OKR model operates on review cycles -- typically quarterly. Between reviews, the system depends on manual check-ins to stay current. In Parallel updates continuously from meetings, so you always see the current state of execution. Drift is detected when it happens, not at the next QBR.
Manual check-ins vs automated status
WorkBoard requires team members to manually update OKR progress. In Parallel eliminates manual status updates entirely. When a decision is made in a meeting, ownership changes, or a timeline shifts, the execution plan updates automatically -- saving managers 6-8 hours per week.
Strategy tool vs coordination layer
WorkBoard is a strategy execution platform -- it helps leadership define and track high-level objectives. In Parallel is a coordination layer -- it connects meetings, tools, and teams so the execution plan reflects what is actually happening. They solve adjacent but different problems. Some organizations benefit from using both.
When to choose WorkBoard
- Your primary need is top-down OKR definition and cascading
- You want a framework for aligning leadership goals to team objectives
- Quarterly review cadences work well for your organization
- Manual OKR check-ins are acceptable for your teams
When to choose In Parallel
- You need to know whether the plan is actually being followed -- in real time
- Plans drift between review cycles and no one notices until it is too late
- You want meeting decisions to automatically update your execution plan and tools
- Managers are overwhelmed with status reporting and manual check-ins
Frequently asked questions
Does In Parallel support OKR tracking like WorkBoard?
In Parallel approaches strategic alignment differently. Rather than defining and cascading OKRs top-down, it captures what actually happens in meetings and maps it to your execution plan. This means your plan reflects reality, not aspirations. You can still use OKR frameworks alongside In Parallel -- but the execution plan stays current automatically.
Can In Parallel replace WorkBoard for strategy execution?
If your primary need is top-down OKR management and reporting, WorkBoard is purpose-built for that. If your problem is that plans and tools drift from reality between review cycles, In Parallel addresses that directly by keeping your execution plan current from every meeting, automatically syncing with project tools.
How does In Parallel handle strategic alignment without OKRs?
In Parallel maintains a living execution plan that captures decisions, ownership, timelines, and dependencies from meetings. This plan serves as the single source of truth for what is actually happening -- connecting team-level execution to organizational priorities. Whether you use OKRs, KPIs, or another framework, In Parallel keeps the execution layer honest.
Is In Parallel suitable for enterprises that already use WorkBoard?
Yes. In Parallel can complement WorkBoard by providing the bottom-up execution intelligence that top-down OKR platforms often miss. WorkBoard tracks what the plan should be; In Parallel tracks whether it is being followed -- capturing drift as it happens rather than at the next quarterly review.
See what's actually happening.
See how In Parallel gives you bottom-up execution intelligence. 30-minute demo.