By Hiran de Silva
The Problem
Across the enterprise landscape, solutions involving Excel, FP&A platforms, and data tools are not evaluated on neutral ground.
Instead, they are:
- Promoted through social media narratives
- Shaped by commercial incentives
- Framed by vendor agendas
- Reinforced by partial truths tailored to specific audiences
As a result:
- Conflicting “truths” coexist
- Limitations are selectively highlighted or hidden
- Capabilities are either exaggerated or suppressed
There is no independent framework that evaluates these approaches against real enterprise needs.
The Approach
This initiative proposes a scientific, evidence-based evaluation model.
Step 1 — Define Real Enterprise Scenarios
We begin not with tools, but with outcomes.
Scenarios may include:
- Multi-entity consolidation
- Global budgeting and review
- Real-time collaboration
- Data integrity and auditability
- Connected operational processes
Each scenario reflects actual enterprise requirements, not isolated technical tasks.
Step 2 — Capture the Full Spectrum of Solutions
For each scenario, we gather solution approaches from across the ecosystem:
- Social media Excel education
- Excel “modern techniques” (e.g., Power Query, LAMBDA)
- Enterprise SaaS platforms (e.g. Anaplan, Workday)
- Consulting firm methodologies
- Academic perspectives
- Independent practitioners
This ensures representation of:
👉 All agendas, not just one
Step 3 — Evaluate Against Stakeholder Needs
Each solution is then evaluated against different stakeholder perspectives:
- CFO / Finance leadership
- Operational management
- IT governance
- Citizen developers
- Software vendors
- Social media influencers
The key question:
👉 Who benefits from this approach—and why?
Key Insight: Truth is Audience-Dependent
A central finding of this framework is:
Many widely promoted “truths” are not universally true—they are conditionally true, depending on the audience’s knowledge and constraints.
Example: The “No Database” Narrative
Some narratives claim:
- Citizen developers do not have access to databases
- Database solutions require long IT cycles
- Governance constraints make them impractical
This is true only within a constrained worldview.
It becomes false when:
- Users understand tools like Microsoft Access or SQL Server Express
- Managers support empowered solutions
- Local or controlled architectures are permitted
👉 The “truth” exists only in the absence of knowledge or permission
Example: Power Query for Consolidation
Widely promoted as a best practice.
But under evaluation:
- Works well for batch transformation tasks
- Breaks down in real-time, multi-user enterprise scenarios
- Introduces architectural limitations when used as a consolidation engine
👉 What is presented as a universal solution is actually context-dependent—and often unsuitable at scale
Key Insight: Technology Adoption is Politically Mediated
Tools are not adopted purely on merit.
They are shaped by:
- Control structures
- Organisational power dynamics
- Risk perception
Example: Power Platform Adoption
Tools like Power Automate are often:
- Promoted to users as empowerment tools
- Presented to IT as control systems
In practice:
👉 Adoption depends less on capability…
👉 And more on whether IT chooses to enable or restrict access
This creates a paradox:
The success of a tool can depend on how easily it can be disabled
The Core Conflict
Across all scenarios, a recurring pattern emerges:
- Some solutions thrive only when alternative knowledge is absent
- Some narratives depend on limitations remaining invisible
- Some tools are promoted to audiences for whom they are not actually optimal
This leads to systemic contradictions:
| Group | Benefits From | Requires |
|---|---|---|
| Influencers | Engagement-driven techniques | Simplicity, repeatability |
| Vendors | Replacement narratives | Perception of Excel limitations |
| IT Departments | Controlled platforms | Restricted user autonomy |
| Enterprise Leaders | Scalable outcomes | Often underserved by mainstream narratives |
The Objective
This programme does not aim to prove one tool right or wrong.
Instead, it aims to:
- Reveal where each approach works
- Expose where it breaks down
- Identify who it truly serves
- Highlight hidden assumptions and constraints
The Principle
Start with the outcome, not the tool.
Only then can we:
- Evaluate solutions fairly
- Compare competing approaches objectively
- Make decisions aligned to real enterprise needs
Final Statement
This initiative calls for:
👉 Independent
👉 Structured
👉 Evidence-based
evaluation of Excel and related technologies across the full spectrum of:
- Tools
- Techniques
- Narratives
- Stakeholders
Because in today’s environment:
The greatest risk is not choosing the wrong tool.
It is choosing a solution based on a partial truth presented as universal reality.
Add comment