In a recent LinkedIn poll, a striking result emerged: 70% of respondents agreed that spreadsheets in the enterprise should be architected using a client-server model. This is no small endorsement — it suggests a growing awareness that Excel, when deployed thoughtfully, can become a scalable, reliable part of enterprise infrastructure.
But here lies the paradox.
In almost every LinkedIn discussion on Excel — particularly those concerning VBA, Power Query, Office Scripts, or Excel’s future in the cloud — there is scant reference to client-server thinking. In fact, there is often little recognition that such an architecture even exists or is relevant. Instead, these conversations tend to orbit superficial distinctions such as “desktop Excel vs Excel for the web” or “cloud files vs local files.”
So how can we explain this apparent contradiction? If so many agree with the principle of enterprise spreadsheets being client-server applications, why is this concept so often absent or misunderstood in practice?
Misunderstanding the “Cloud”
Part of the confusion stems from the blanket use of the word cloud. Two completely different concepts are often conflated:
- Spreadsheets stored on the cloud — e.g., saving an Excel file on OneDrive or SharePoint. This is akin to saving a file on a network drive. The spreadsheet is still a standalone file, albeit now accessed via the internet.
- Spreadsheets acting as clients to a cloud database — i.e., a true client-server architecture where the spreadsheet is merely a front-end interface, and all business-critical data resides in a back-end system (such as SQL Server, Azure SQL, or even Access). The spreadsheet sends queries and retrieves results, with no duplication of data logic or manual data handling.
Most LinkedIn discussions — especially from influencers or self-proclaimed Excel experts — focus only on the former. They mistakenly equate file storage with application architecture. The result is a widespread belief that Excel “has gone cloud” when in fact nothing fundamental has changed about how Excel is being used.
The Lingering Legacy of “Spreadsheet as Document”
Another factor is cultural. Excel is still overwhelmingly viewed as a document tool, like Word or PowerPoint — a blank canvas for users to do whatever they wish. This mindset is reinforced by training that focuses on standalone use, keyboard shortcuts, and formula tricks rather than architecture, process design, or automation frameworks.
Even among advanced users, very few are taught that Excel can — and should — be used as a front-end to a structured, centralized database system. Fewer still are shown how to do this using ADO, SQL connections, or structured architecture principles that mirror traditional client-server applications.
Social Media Education: A Double-Edged Sword
This leads to a deeper issue: Excel education on platforms like LinkedIn, YouTube, and TikTok has been hijacked by superficial content. Influencers chase engagement by teaching quick hacks, quirky formulas, and flashy features. Unfortunately, the architecture underpinning professional spreadsheet development — principles like separation of concerns, relational data, or role-based access — don’t trend well. They are “unsexy” but essential.
Consequently, even seasoned professionals may agree with client-server principles in theory — because they sound right — but fail to recognize, define, or apply them in real-world use. They lack the vocabulary and models to distinguish between a file that happens to be stored on the cloud and a process that is fundamentally architected as client-server.
The Vital Question
So, what’s really going on?
Why is there near-universal approval for client-server spreadsheet architecture in theory — but near-total absence of discussion or understanding in practice?
This is not a trivial issue. It exposes a dangerous gap between what professionals believe they support, and what they are actually doing — a knowledge-action gap driven by shallow education, legacy thinking, and poor architectural framing.
If the Excel community — particularly those in finance, operations, and IT — are serious about transforming spreadsheet use from “Excel Hell” into enterprise-grade infrastructure, we must bridge this gap. That starts by asking this critical question, loudly and repeatedly:
Do we actually know what we mean when we talk about Excel on the cloud — and are we sure we’re not mistaking storage for architecture?
Until we do, Excel will remain trapped in a paradox of good intentions undermined by misinformed practices.
Add comment