By Hiran de Silva
We decided to test it.
The Experiment
We formed two groups.
Group 1 were given a link to a popular YouTube tutorial on inventory management. They watched it, followed the instructions, and successfully reproduced the spreadsheet shown in the video.
They were confident, enthusiastic, and proud—they could copy what was demonstrated on screen.
Then we gave them a second task. It was in the same “ballpark” but slightly different: a variation of the inventory-management scenario requiring similar techniques, but not identical. They could use any resource available on social media to find a solution.
They were stuck.
Their earlier confidence turned out to rest on imitation, not comprehension. They could take dictation, but not write their own paragraph.
A Second Group
Group 2 received no video at all. Instead, they were taught principles—the kind of conceptual foundations that explain why a process works, not just how to click through it.
For example, they learned that:
- Stock must be recorded where it lives—in the storeroom—and shared across departments.
- Stock movements are transactions, not running totals; goods in and goods out must be captured chronologically.
- Re-ordering follows from monitoring levels and triggering replenishment.
- Queries—whether by sales teams, call-handlers, or websites—should read live stock data to confirm availability.
- The system should be central, serving multiple functions: purchasing, sales, accounting, and logistics.
In other words, they were taught the real-world context of how stock data flows through a business.
When both groups faced the same new scenario, the difference was stark.
Group 1 could not begin.
Group 2 asked intelligent questions, identified data-flow needs, and located the right techniques to build a working model.
What the Experiment Revealed
The first group represent the mainstream YouTube learning experience—watch, copy, repeat.
The second group represent conceptual learners who understand how the system fits into the business.
Which skill is valuable in industry?
Reproducing a tutorial is useful for a hobbyist.
Understanding and adapting principles is valuable for an organisation.
The Real-World Parallel: The “Reg Call Handler” Challenge
We saw this same divide when the Reg Call Handler challenge appeared on LinkedIn last year.
We asked: Can this large-scale inventory and dispatch system be built in Excel?
Immediately, top influencers and “experts” declared:
“This isn’t something you can do with spreadsheets.”
That was Group 1 thinking.
They benchmarked Excel against the literal skills of video followers, not against the architectural capabilities of the tool itself.
Group 2 thinkers—those who understood the underlying principles—could see instantly that the problem was solvable in Excel using a hub-and-spoke architecture with a central database. And indeed, it was solved.
The “impossible” turned out to be entirely possible.
So Why the Blind Spot?
Because the visible benchmark on social media is the first group—the copy-and-paste learners.
Influencers optimise for engagement, not enterprise value. Their incentive is likes, not organisational transformation.
To be clear, YouTube tutorials are excellent for micro-skills—for example, reminding yourself which button triggers the SEQ feature in Word or the syntax of a function you already understand.
But they are inadequate for systems thinking—stock control, consolidation, budgeting, or any process that spans departments and databases.
Those require lateral thinking, not literal replication.
The Real Question
When experts say, “Excel can’t do that,” which mindset are they using?
Are they thinking like Group 1—followers of videos?
Or like Group 2—architects who understand the principles of scalable, collaborative design?
Because if you think like Group 2, Excel suddenly looks much more powerful than anyone imagined.
That’s where the true value lies—not in following along, but in understanding enough to make the impossible possible.
Add comment