How spreadsheets undermine engineering execution

Spreadsheets are widely used to coordinate engineering work. They track tasks, dates, responsibilities and open points across teams and projects.

In many engineering-driven environments, spreadsheets emerge as a pragmatic response to gaps left by formal systems. They are flexible, accessible and easy to adapt.

At the same time, their widespread use introduces structural distortions that undermine engineering execution rather than supporting it.

What spreadsheets are good at

Spreadsheets excel at listing and aggregating information. They provide a shared surface for tracking activities, issues and commitments.

For local coordination, this can be effective. Teams gain short-term visibility into what needs attention and who is involved.

Problems arise when spreadsheets are used to represent execution reality.

Execution reduced to entries

In spreadsheets, execution is represented through entries. Rows and columns substitute for structure, readiness and dependency.

Assemblies, interfaces and phases are flattened into status fields. Dependencies are implied through comments or manual conventions.

This reduction removes the structural context in which execution actually unfolds. Readiness becomes a label rather than an evaluated condition.

Visibility without coherence

Spreadsheets create an appearance of visibility. Everything seems listed, tracked and updated.

What they do not provide is coherence. Changes in one area do not propagate structurally to others. Dependencies are not enforced; they are remembered.

As execution complexity grows, this reliance on manual coherence becomes unsustainable. Visibility increases while understanding deteriorates.

Delayed recognition of risk

Execution risk in engineering-driven projects accumulates where assumptions diverge from reality. Spreadsheets are particularly poor at exposing this divergence.

Status fields remain green while readiness erodes. Workload concentrates on resolving hidden dependencies that are not visible in the spreadsheet view.

Risk becomes apparent only when execution stalls, requiring urgent coordination outside the existing tracking structures.

Why spreadsheets persist

The persistence of spreadsheets is not a cultural failure. It reflects the absence of structural representations for engineering execution in many system landscapes.

Spreadsheets fill a representational void. They attempt to capture execution reality without having access to the structures that govern it.

As long as execution readiness, dependencies and phases remain implicit, spreadsheets will continue to be used — and to fail.

Execution requires structural visibility

Engineering execution cannot be managed through lists alone. It depends on understanding how structure, readiness and workload interact over time.

When spreadsheets replace structural visibility, execution is coordinated through assumptions rather than evaluated conditions.

This substitution explains why engineering execution often appears manageable until it suddenly is not.