Certifications in Excel: What Are They Really Measuring?

By Hiran de Silva

Certifications in Excel are everywhere. From LinkedIn Learning certificates of completion to credentials issued by organizations like the Financial Modelling Institute, the market is saturated with digital badges and framed printouts. On the surface, they offer reassurance — a way to show your Excel skills are officially validated. But beneath that surface lies a serious question: what are these certifications actually certifying?

The User Guide Fallacy

Let’s start with a simple analogy. If you buy a car, you receive a user manual. It tells you how to switch on the headlights, where to find the spare tire, and how to use the indicator. Now imagine you’re given a certification based solely on your ability to recall that manual. Does that make you a competent driver?

Of course not.

And yet, that’s effectively the benchmark many Excel certifications are using. These certificates often assess whether you understand the product — not whether you can creatively solve problems with it. They are tests of the manual, not the road.

The Cosmetic Appeal of Certification

In the age of online learning, some certifications are issued simply because all the course videos were watched to completion — a “certificate of completion,” not proof of competence. And yet, these cosmetic indicators are remarkably popular. They decorate LinkedIn profiles, adorn CVs, and feed the illusion of mastery.

But the danger lies in mistaking the illusion for the real thing — particularly in the enterprise, where Excel is not just a tool, but a platform embedded in business-critical processes.

Simplicity + Agility = Competitive Advantage

In earlier lectures, I spoke about simplicity and agility as twin forces that determine success — not just in technology, but in evolution, economics, and systems design.

• Simplicity comes from creative thinking — the ability to reduce complexity without losing functionality.
• Agility is the capacity to adapt across contexts. In Excel, agility shows up not just in formulas, but in architecture — especially in how we model, manage, and connect data across systems.

Too often, unnecessary complexity is tolerated, even celebrated. We see advanced users use Excel’s flexibility to build messes that only they can understand — where agility becomes a liability, used to wallow in complexity instead of rising above it.

So What Should Be Certified?

What we need — and what is sorely missing — is certification that measures two core competencies:

1. Creative Thinking (Lateral Thinking)
   Can the user simplify a complex business problem? Can they join the dots in unexpected ways? Can they design rather than just operate a spreadsheet?
2. Agility in Enterprise Contexts
   Does the user understand Excel’s role in an enterprise architecture? Do they know how to leverage data model concepts (not just Power Query), how to implement hub-and-spoke or client-server models, and how to integrate Excel with external data sources?

The real test is not whether you can write an XLOOKUP. It’s whether you know when not to. It’s whether you can move beyond the literalism of spreadsheet training and into the lateral space where enterprise solutions are built.

The Certification We Actually Need

We need a certification that challenges people to:

• Solve open-ended business problems.
• Demonstrate architecture-level thinking.
• Understand relational concepts, even if implemented through different tools.
• Recognize when Excel is being misused — and when it’s being underestimated.

In other words, a certification that goes beyond the product manual and into the application of strategic thought.

The Cost of Not Knowing

Let’s not underestimate the role of misinformation in this debate. Influencers and trainers on social media — including names like Paul Barnhurst and Mark Proctor — often declare what is and isn’t “Excel,” based on their own limited definitions or promotional incentives. Their commentary often distracts learners from bigger truths, conditioning them to dismiss the very solutions that businesses need most.

This is where a truly intelligent certification would shine. It would measure not only knowledge, but resilience to distraction — the ability to filter noise, see clearly, and think independently.

Star Trek and the Missing Dots

One of my favorite illustrations of lateral thinking comes from pop culture. If you’ve heard the phrase “Beam me up, Scotty,” but never seen Star Trek, you might recognize the dots — but fail to join them. The knowledge is present, but the connection is missing.

The same happens in Excel. Users might know formulas, functions, and features — but still be blind to the architectural solution right in front of them. A certification that probes dot-joining ability — that tests for insight, not just information — is what the enterprise truly needs.

Conclusion: The Certification Crisis

Certification today is about checkboxes. But the work that Excel does in the enterprise is about connections — relational, architectural, and cognitive. We don’t need more certificates of completion. We need a certification of competence, creativity, and contextual intelligence.

That’s not just a better credential. It’s a better future for Excel.