|
|
|
|
|
by conductr
1338 days ago
|
|
I know there are better ways but this can/should be seen as part of the learning curve with Excel. The guardrail was seeing "surprising results" they should have known to double check their steps, see if they could recreate it, etc. before showing it to you. Not sure how you handle this but some times it's a hard lesson to learn. Eg. I've seen people convince a public company executives to do strategy X based on analysis Y. Then when things aren't going as promised I get asked to review the strategy, I might find some elaborate model where somewhere deep in the layers of math/logic/lookups, someone divided instead of multiplied or something like that. They then have egg on their face, the strategy may have been implemented already, and I usually have the uncomfortable job of explaining to management why the projections were off and the strategy is probably doomed in terms of reaching the expected outcomes (basically throwing somebody else under the bus due to an innocent math error). I see this so much in my job, it's actually routine for me or my team to review any numbers the company management will see before they see it because of things like this. |
|
Is it Excel-specific though? I've made these kinds of errors with Excel (though not with stakes this high). I've also made them a lot when doing math on paper. And I've also made them in C++, Common Lisp, Matlab, Python, R and JavaScript. Now, with those other tools, it's easier to spot an error in a formula on review - but in Excel, it's easier to spot the intermediary results being off, so it's a wash.
I think the thing to learn is to be more careful, to sanity-check intermediary calculations; these kinds of errors are about being momentarily confused, and will happen regardless of the tool you use.