Parallel approval is a workflow pattern where multiple approvers review a request simultaneously. The workflow waits for the required decisions according to the process rules, then moves the request to the next state or action.
Instead of Manager → Finance → Security, a parallel approval can send the request to Manager, Finance, and Security at the same time. If their reviews are independent, this can remove unnecessary waiting from the process.
What is parallel approval?
Parallel approval is used when more than one person or team needs to review the same request, but one reviewer does not need to wait for another reviewer’s decision. The requests are created together, each approver responds independently, and the workflow evaluates the combined result before continuing.
This is different from sequential approval, where each approval stage waits for the previous one to finish. A mature approval workflow can use both patterns: parallel review where decisions are independent, followed by a sequential final authorization when required.
An employee requests a new SaaS application. Finance can review the cost, Security can assess the risk, and the application owner can evaluate the business need at the same time. Once the required decisions are complete, the workflow can continue to Procurement or provisioning.
Why use parallel approvals?
The main reason to use parallel approval is to remove artificial dependencies between reviewers. If three people can make their decisions independently, forcing reviewer two to wait for reviewer one simply extends the elapsed approval time.
Parallel does not mean uncontrolled
A parallel process still needs a clear rule for completion. Depending on the business process, the workflow might require all reviewers to approve, treat a single rejection as a stop condition, or apply another defined decision rule. The important point is that the reviewers can act independently while the workflow controls the combined outcome.
Where are parallel approvals used?
| Use case | Parallel reviewers | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Software purchase | Finance + Security + Application owner | Route to Procurement or provision the approved software |
| Vendor onboarding | Security + Legal + Finance | Create the vendor record or route exceptions for further review |
| Document review | Legal + Compliance + Subject-matter experts | Finalize, return for changes, or move to final sign-off. Google also supports file approvals in Google Drive for eligible Workspace accounts. |
| IT access request | Resource owner + Security + Manager, where appropriate | Provision access after the required approvals are complete |
| Employee onboarding | HR + IT + Facilities / Operations | Continue account, access, equipment, and workplace setup |
| Contract review | Legal + Finance + Security / Privacy | Route to an authorized signer or return for revision |
Parallel reviews are particularly useful inside multi-level approvals. One level may contain several parallel reviewers, while the next level begins only after that group has completed its required decisions.
Parallel approval vs. sequential approval
| Question | Sequential approval | Parallel approval |
|---|---|---|
| When does each review start? | After the previous required stage finishes | Several reviews start at the same time |
| Best when | Later reviewers depend on earlier decisions | Reviewers can evaluate independently |
| Main risk | One slow approver blocks everyone behind them | The workflow still waits if one required parallel reviewer does not respond |
| Typical example | Manager → Finance → Executive approval | Finance + Security + Legal review together |
The best design is often hybrid rather than choosing one pattern for the whole process. Approval routing can determine which reviews should run in parallel and which should remain dependent on an earlier decision.
What are the common challenges of parallel approval?
The process must specify which combination of decisions allows the request to continue and what a rejection or request for changes does to the overall state.
Parallel review removes waiting between reviewers, but the whole process can still stall if one required approver never responds.
If request data or a document changes during review, different approvers may be evaluating different versions of the same object.
One team may approve while another rejects or requests changes. The workflow needs an explicit rule for how the object changes state.
If the requester revises the item after feedback, some or all approvals may need to run again rather than continuing with stale decisions.
Parallelization should not become a reason to copy every possible stakeholder onto every request. Reviewers should be added only when their decision is required.
Even after all approvals are complete, someone may still need to provision access, update a system, create a purchase order, or complete another business action manually.
How automation helps manage parallel approvals
Approval workflow software can create the approval requests simultaneously, track each reviewer’s state, apply the completion rules, send reminders, handle exceptions, and trigger the next business action when the required decisions are complete. Platforms such as Microsoft Power Automate also document approval automation patterns for business workflows.
Keep the approved object in a controlled state
Automation is especially valuable when the object being approved can change. A workflow can preserve a specific document version, hold an item in a review state, or route it back into a revision loop before approval starts again.
Using a state machine for approval loops
Zenphi allows teams to build state-machine-style automations where the object being approved moves between defined states. The general state-machine model is also widely used in workflow orchestration to represent discrete states and transitions. Instead of treating approval as one linear sequence, the workflow models what state the object is currently in and which events are allowed to move it to another state.
If one reviewer requests a change, the object can move into a “Changes Requested” state. After the requester updates it, the workflow can loop the object back into review. If the required approvals are satisfied, it moves into the “Approved” state and the workflow continues.
This model is useful for contracts, policies, access requests, procurement items, documents, and other processes where a request may move backward as well as forward. It also makes the logic explicit: the same object is being switched between states, and the workflow controls which transition happens next.
How Zenphi helps automate parallel approvals
Zenphi can combine parallel approvals with conditional routing, sequential stages, escalation logic, state transitions, and the business actions that happen after the final decision.
A workflow can begin from Google Forms, Jotform, Typeform, an internal portal, another system, or from Google Chat when a workflow is exposed as an enterprise AI agent.
Use request data, department, amount, resource sensitivity, risk, requester role, or other conditions to decide which approval branches should exist.
Reviewers who do not depend on one another can receive their approval tasks at the same time while Zenphi tracks their individual outcomes.
A state-machine pattern can move the request through states such as Draft, In Review, Changes Requested, Approved, Rejected, or another process-specific state and loop it back for another review when necessary.
Use reminders, expiry, escalation, routing rules, and transition logic to determine what happens when a reviewer does not respond or when the parallel decisions do not align.
Once the required state is reached, Zenphi can continue into Google Workspace or external systems — for example, provision access, update permissions, create records, generate documents, create a purchase order, process a payment, or notify stakeholders.
Describe the approval logic in plain English with ZAIA
You do not have to start by manually drawing every branch. With ZAIA, Zenphi’s AI workflow builder, you can describe the automation you want in plain English — for example: “Send the request to Finance and Security in parallel. If either requests changes, move the item to Changes Requested. When it is resubmitted, run the reviews again. If the required approvals are complete, move it to Approved.” ZAIA can use that description to build a workflow draft that you can review and refine.
Examples of parallel approval patterns
Send a sensitive access request to the resource owner and Security together, then provision access only after the required decisions are complete.
Run Finance, Security, and Legal reviews together, then move the vendor or purchase into the next state when the review criteria are satisfied.
Send a policy or contract to several subject-matter reviewers, collect feedback, move to Changes Requested if necessary, and loop back after revision.
Run HR, IT, and operational setup work in parallel after the appropriate authorization rather than waiting for one team to finish before another can begin.
Bring us one approval process that keeps waiting on people. We’ll map it with you in 30 minutes.
Bring a real process that currently runs through email, forms, spreadsheets, or manual follow-up. We’ll identify which reviews can run in parallel, where state transitions or loops are needed, and how to automate the actions that happen after approval.
Talk to an approval workflow expert