When evaluating Excel challenges and techniques, one critical aspect often overlooked is scalability. In many cases, we shouldn’t be teaching or applying techniques that are not scalable. These non-scalable approaches can result in messy, unmanageable spreadsheets that break easily, giving Excel a bad name. My stance is simple: if a technique isn’t scalable, it shouldn’t be taught as a solution. It’s a lesson I aim to drive home in my “Excel Mission Impossible” challenges.
A common pushback I encounter is the argument that some problems don’t need scalable solutions. These critics argue that certain scenarios are “one-offs,” too simple to require advanced spreadsheet techniques. They may even claim it’s like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
However, I would respond to that argument with two key points.
1. The Problem with ‘One-Off’ Solutions
People often say that a problem doesn’t need to scale — until it does. This is where businesses sleepwalk into a nightmare. A quick-fix solution that seems acceptable today becomes unmanageable when the problem grows beyond its original scope. In reality, determining when a solution needs a more scalable approach is rarely obvious to the people working on the ground. They don’t always have the capacity to foresee the future need for scalability, or worse, they don’t even know that scalable techniques exist.
If those same people knew there was an easier, scalable technique available, they would likely choose it over the quick fix. After all, scalable solutions are generally easier to manage in the long term. So the real question becomes: at what point should someone decide to switch from a simple, non-scalable approach to a more robust one? Just like driving a manual car and shifting gears when necessary, someone needs to recognize the need for change and act accordingly.
In many cases, the people making these decisions are not aware of the more effective, scalable techniques at their disposal. This lack of knowledge is why so many spreadsheets become unmanageable as they evolve.
2. Scalable Solutions Are Easier in the Long Run
Another important point is that scalable solutions are often easier to learn and implement than non-scalable ones. Once you’ve built the foundation with scalable techniques, you’ll find they hold up well across various scenarios. In contrast, non-scalable solutions offer no significant advantage unless you’re operating under the flawed assumption that more power inherently equals more complexity. This is a dangerous mindset, particularly in Excel, where complexity often leads to greater risk and higher chances of errors.
I teach the hub-and-spoke model, a scalable solution that can be learned in a short course and applied to a wide range of enterprise-level challenges. In practice, once someone learns this method, they quickly see its applicability and ease of use across different contexts.
When we compare non-scalable and scalable solutions in detail, there is no compelling argument in favor of the former. Non-scalable solutions are only favored by those who either lack the knowledge of scalable techniques or believe that more complexity means more power. In reality, the most powerful solutions are often simpler and more effective.
Conclusion
The key takeaway here is that scalable techniques should be the default in Excel, not the exception. The ability to switch gears when needed—whether in a spreadsheet or in strategic thinking—ensures that your solutions are not just quick fixes but robust, sustainable, and easy to manage as the problem evolves. This is where real power lies, not in complexity, but in adaptability and scalability.
This is a podcast by Hiran de Silva. Narrated by Charlie.
Add comment