{"id":289,"date":"2004-03-31T18:56:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-01T02:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/?p=289"},"modified":"2007-12-30T16:23:36","modified_gmt":"2007-12-31T00:23:36","slug":"spreadsheets-25-years-in-a-cell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/?p=289","title":{"rendered":"Spreadsheets: 25 Years in a Cell"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> An interesting article on how people delude themselves using spreadsheets for planning\/estimating.<\/p>\n<hr align=\"left\" width=\"10%\" \/> <strong>Spreadsheets: 25 Years in a Cell<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>(<a href=\"http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=\/zd\/20040323\/tc_zd\/121973\">http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/news?tmpl=sto<wbr><\/wbr>ry&amp;u=\/zd\/20040323\/tc_zd\/121973<\/a>)<\/em><br \/>\nTue Mar 23, 4:24 PM ET<br \/>\nPeter Coffee &#8211; eWEEKIn this 25th anniversary year of the PC spreadsheet, we can be proud of the progress we've made in decision technology. We can also be appalled by the stagnation of our decision-making practices. The things we learned to do badly in 1979, upon the debut of VisiCalc, we mostly continue to do wrong today.<\/p>\n<p>IT observer Stan Kelly-Bootle described in 1995 the impact of VisiCalc and its descendants: \"The PC soon blossomed as the Uzi of creative corporate accounting,\" he wrote. \"The What-If moved to Why-Not, indicting the spreadsheet as the chief culprit in the 1980s S&amp;L scandal.\"<\/p>\n<p>Kelly-Bootle was talking about the ease with which we slide our assumptions toward their optimistic limits, inching good numbers up and bad numbers down until we get the result we want &#8212; <strong>failing to admit that the result is based on multiplying a series of less-than-even chances<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><!--more-->There are two ways that spreadsheets, as we know them, distort our thinking and lead to bad decisions. <strong>The  first distortion is the use of point values and simple arithmetic  instead of probability distributions and statistical measures<\/strong>. So  far as I know, there's no off-the-shelf spreadsheet product-certainly  none in common use-that provides for input of numbers as uncertain  quantities, even though almost all of our decisions rest on forecasts  or on speculations.<\/p>\n<p>There are add-on products that incorporate  uncertainty into spreadsheets, and many of them are quite good.  Products of this kind that I've favorably reviewed over the years  include DecisionTools Pro from Palisade and Crystal Ball Professional  and CB Predictor from Decisioneering. It's not too hard to appreciate  the difference between products that incorporate uncertainty and those  that don't: On the one hand, you've got, \"We predict a $1 million  profit in the first year\"; on the other, \"The expected Year 1 profit is  $1 million, but there's a 30 percent chance of losses for the first two  years.\" <strong>These different statements will lead to quite different discussions.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The  second distortion caused by conventional spreadsheets is more subtle.  It's described in a 1980s paper, written by university researcher  Jeffrey Kottemann and others concerning what they called \"Performance,  Beliefs, and the Illusion of Control.\" The paper described an  experiment in which subjects were asked to perform a planning task  using different tools, some of them with elaborate what-if capability  and others without it.<\/p>\n<p>The subjects whose tools invited them to  imagine alternative scenarios believed they were doing a better  job-even though statistical measures of their results showed no  improvement in the actual quality of the forecasts. Those subjects did,  however, take longer to perform the task. Isn't that the worst  nightmare of those who must justify IT's return on investment-spending  extra money on a more time-consuming product that yields absolutely no  measurable improvement?<\/p>\n<p>If we were starting from scratch, with  the hardware power and the pervasive connectivity of today, I suspect  we'd build something that looks a lot more like the Projected  Financials product from Whitebirch Software. You can try before you buy  with a guest account at Whitebirch's site, but, essentially, the  product deals with financial objects rather than individual numbers. A  revenue stream, for example, has certain characteristics, such as when  it starts and what trends it exhibits. A financial statement aggregates  some numbers, such as monthly profits that sum to yearly profits, but  reports others, such as accounts receivable, as levels rather than  flows.<\/p>\n<p>The higher-level approach of the Whitebirch product  encourages higher-level thinking about assumptions and uncertainties,  and it makes it easier to construct more complete and realistic  models-ones that reflect seasonal trends, market saturations and other  messy but important behaviors that ordinary spreadsheets only model  with great effort. Such nuanced modeling encourages decision makers to  spend more time acquiring better knowledge and less time trying to spin  the straw of ignorance into the gold of brilliant foresight.<\/p>\n<p>Spreadsheets  were a remarkable innovation, the tipping-point product for putting PCs  on professional desktops. Their familiarity need not breed contempt-but  neither should it lead us to ignore the spreadsheet's limits.<\/p>\n<p>Technology Editor Peter Coffee can be reached at <a href=\"mailto:peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com\" class=\"linkification-ext\" title=\"Linkification: mailto:peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com\">peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An interesting article on how people delude themselves using spreadsheets for planning\/estimating. Spreadsheets: 25 Years in a Cell (http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=\/zd\/20040323\/tc_zd\/121973) Tue Mar 23, 4:24 PM ET Peter Coffee &#8211; eWEEKIn this 25th anniversary year of the PC spreadsheet, we can be proud of the progress we've <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/?p=289\">Read More &#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-risk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}