By Hiran de Silva.
There is an absurdity so rich, so uncomfortably familiar to those who’ve worked in large organizations, that it deserves to be called out not with a shrug, but with a sharp burst of satire and a well-aimed spray gun.
Imagine this: you are handed a power tool. Let’s say a high-performance electric spray gun. You’re told it’s yours to use. You even attend the training. You get the badge. You pass the tests. And when you finally plug it in and start using it—producing immaculate results that save your team time and delight your boss—someone storms in yelling, “Stop! What do you think you’re doing?!”
This, dear reader, is what happened (fortunately just once!) when I demonstrated what Excel—yes, humble old Excel—could do when wielded properly. Not just formulas and charts, but database integration, live data updates, push-button reporting—real automation. The kind that transforms processes, not just workbooks.
From Purple Squares to Spray Guns
If you’ve seen my “purple square” metaphor, you’ll know it illustrates the status quo: isolated effort, manual boundaries, pride in edge-alignment. Then comes the spray gun—a better method entirely. Faster, scalable, collaborative.
Management loves it. Users love it. Productivity leaps, costs vanish, smiles all round.
Except… cue the IT department. “Hold on. You’re not allowed to do that.”
The Excel Heresy
Let’s rewind to 1998. The first system-wide model I built—called the Accounts Model—used nothing but Microsoft Office. It plugged a gap in budget review and transformed workflows. My client’s response? “This is brilliant. Can we pay you more so you stick around?”
IT’s response? “You’re not supposed to do this. You should’ve asked us.”
Right. The same IT department that said, “We’re not responsible for that,” when first approached. Now that the job’s done—better than they imagined—they’re incensed. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s not theirs.
Horse-Drawn Motorcars: An Analogy
This is like giving someone a brand-new car, letting them read the manual, get certified, even encouraging them to “go faster”… and then panicking when they start the engine.
“Whoa, whoa, who told you to start the engine?”
“Um… it’s a motorcar?”
“No no, the horses are there for a reason. We’re only licensed to let you own the motorcar. Not to drive it. You might crash!”
“But I know how to drive.”
“That’s not the point!”
You’re Not Supposed to Know This
The irony gets deeper. The organization was promoting Microsoft Office and running national certification programs. I was hired to help empower users. So, I empowered them. I used Access, SQL, ADO, and Excel as a client-server solution. No hacks. No external tools. Just using Office as intended.
And the result? Uproar.
An IT manager wrote to senior leadership, formally recommending that this level of user-driven innovation be disallowed. Why? Because it exposed the embarrassing truth: that many “professionals” didn’t understand the tools they were paid to manage—and that the users, when properly trained, could out-innovate the system architects.
But Surely, That’s the Point?
The tools exist for empowerment. That’s not conjecture—that’s Microsoft’s branding. Satya Nadella’s original team was showcasing this in 1993. Bill Gates wrote a book called Business @ The Speed of Thought. Office came with macros, integration hooks, database features—all under the banner of user productivity.
What do we say to that? “Lovely features, please don’t use them”?
Apparently so. Because when users do use them, and solve problems faster than entire project teams, the chorus shifts from celebration to condemnation.
Enter the Arbitrators of Mediocrity
The backlash is always cloaked in concern.
“You’re showing them things they shouldn’t know.”
“This is outside your remit.”
“These capabilities are beyond what users can safely handle.”
In other words, empowerment is dangerous if it makes the wrong people look smart.
And the gatekeepers—whether IT managers, ERP consultants, or social media Excel trainers—are often not guarding safety. They’re guarding relevance. If the users don’t need rescuing, who needs the rescuers?
(Some of my esteemed colleagues!), Take Note
This is where figures like some of my colleagues come in. I say: train people to drive the car. He says: they can’t handle it. Apparently, building a database is “a year-long project.” Really? Access takes seconds to spin up. The table structure is as intuitive as Excel. The only difference is, you’re now building systems—not spreadsheets.
If that’s beyond your audience, maybe you’re underestimating them. Or maybe… you’re selling horse-feed to a crowd who could be driving Teslas.
Final Tally
That first “unauthorized” Excel model led to a six-year tenure. My initial contract was £6,000 for a six-week assignment. Total billing by the end? £1.4 million in today’s money. Because the spray gun worked. Because empowerment, when real, creates undeniable value. Because when the engine is started, the car moves. The idea spreads.
And no IT department can argue with results forever—though they may certainly try.
The Punchline
If you give someone a tool built to empower them, and they actually use it effectively, and your response is to say, “Stop using it properly,” then something has gone very, very wrong.
You are not protecting quality. You are preserving mediocrity.
So here’s the question for anyone who claims to support digital empowerment:
Do you actually want people to use the tools properly—or just keep pretending?
Because if it’s the latter, let’s be honest and rebrand Microsoft Office accordingly:
“Microsoft Office: Empowering Users (Until They Get Too Good).”
And if it’s the former—if we really believe in competence, mastery, and transformation—then the spray gun stays plugged in.
Let it spray.
Add comment