In a recent discussion about Excel and enterprise tools, a crucial idea crystallized: we urgently need a framework for evaluating real-world applicability of the various tools and technologies that claim to be enterprise-ready. Because not all solutions are created equal—and most are not even comparable when examined through the lens of operational reality.
Let’s start by setting the scene. There is such a thing as enterprise architecture. That phrase is often misused or misunderstood, but at its core, it means setting up a system that separates user interaction (the client) from data control (the server). This client-server architecture is the gold standard for scalable, secure, maintainable business systems. Whether it’s hosted in-house or in the cloud, the principle remains the same. It is non-negotiable in serious enterprise settings.
Now, within this paradigm, several technological options compete for attention:
- ERP systems (like SAP or Oracle), promising full integration—but at staggering cost and timeframes.
- Modern Excel add-ons like Power Query, Power Automate, Lambdas, and Office Scripts.
- Standalone FP&A tools marketed as Excel alternatives.
- Code-based integrations like Python with ExcelWings.
- And finally, classic Excel with VBA, especially when paired with structured methodology.
Each of these approaches has merit in theory, but theory alone is not how businesses work.
So we ask the real question: What works, for whom, and under what conditions?
To answer that, we need to stop debating tools in isolation and start evaluating them using a benchmarking approach grounded in enterprise context. Consider the annual budgeting cycle, or more specifically, the midyear budget review process—a perfect benchmark for comparison.
Why? Because it’s:
- Cross-functional,
- Data-intensive,
- Recurring,
- Time-sensitive, and
- Politically fraught with management expectations.
Let’s compare our options.
The Practical Evaluation Framework
Imagine each tool as a contestant in a decathlon. It’s not enough to win one race—you need consistent performance across ten events.
For example:
- ERP systems may theoretically handle budgeting, but take six months and £2 million to implement even a minor workflow change.
- Python with ExcelWings sounds modern, but who’s going to manage that pipeline? Do your existing finance staff know Python? And what happens when the lead dev goes on holiday?
- Office Scripts, Lambdas, and Automate may sound sleek—until you remember they don’t run natively on desktop Excel. Try using those in a mixed environment with legacy files and see how far you get.
Now contrast that with what some people call the Hiran Methodology:
- Excel + VBA + structured client-server thinking.
- It’s accessible to the massive Excel-literate workforce already embedded in organizations.
- It’s empirically provable: give a few smart users a few days of training and watch them build powerful process automations tailored to your business.
In benchmarking exercises, we’ve seen that 80% of business users—when given proper direction—can implement meaningful, enterprise-aligned solutions using VBA and structured templates. These aren’t just macros. These are scalable, supportable workflows: budget imports, multi-level approvals, reconciliations, and variance tracking—delivered fast and maintained by those closest to the action.
That matters.
The Bigger Picture
Let’s not pretend there’s one perfect solution. Different organizations have different cultures, technologies, and internal politics. Some managers will fear key-man dependency, while others worry about speed to delivery. Some IT departments love the idea of Office Scripts; others haven’t even heard of them.
But in this landscape of fragmented options, the Excel+VBA approach remains the only one that is:
- Already widely used;
- Capable of integrating with databases, APIs, and legacy systems;
- Quick to implement; and
- Usable by domain experts without needing to hire new staff.
And that’s the crux of the message: availability of skills, alignment with management comfort zones, speed of deployment, and empirical success rate must be part of the evaluation.
Conclusion: We Benchmark or We Blindfold
In short: this is not a tech debate. It’s a benchmarking exercise grounded in the realities of enterprise decision-making.
We’re not claiming that Excel+VBA is the only tool worth using. We are saying that, when measured honestly across key enterprise requirements—who can do it, how fast, how reliably, and with what footprint—it wins far more often than its louder, flashier competitors.
Let’s stop pretending otherwise.
And let’s start evaluating all options the way enterprises actually work.
Add comment