[{"id":2457,"date":"2026-04-01T09:20:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T08:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bc-consulting.at\/excel-in-bcm\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T12:44:44","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T11:44:44","slug":"excel-in-bcm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bc-consulting.at\/en\/excel-in-bcm\/","title":{"rendered":"Excel in BCM: Proven, but not future-proof"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Many organizations have built up their business continuity management systems over the years using Excel or other spreadsheet programs, particularly for risk analysis and business impact analysis. This is understandable and, in many cases, makes sense: Excel is readily available, flexible, and allows for a quick start.<\/p>

Especially at the start of a BCM program, various tools offer exactly what is needed: structure, flexibility, and the opportunity to establish initial transparency. But over time, the context changes. New requirements arise, organizations grow, and interdependencies increase. And this raises a crucial question:<\/p>

Is a table-based approach still sufficient when BCM becomes a company-wide management task?<\/strong><\/p>

As complexity increases, Excel reaches its limits<\/strong><\/h2>

Various programs work well as long as the overall conditions remain manageable. But this is precisely where the critical issue lies: BCM rarely remains static. As the program matures, the requirements change fundamentally:<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>
Situation<\/th>\u2705 Excel works well<\/th>\u274c Excel becomes critical<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Organization<\/td>Manageable structures<\/td>Multiple locations\/areas<\/td><\/tr>
Amount of data<\/td>ndividual analyses<\/td>Growing data landscape<\/td><\/tr>
Vote<\/td>Few participants<\/td>Many stakeholders<\/td><\/tr>
Requirements<\/td>Stable<\/td>Dynamic\/Regulatory<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
\u00a0<\/div>

What initially appears to be a gradual evolution often leads, in practice, to a critical threshold: the effort required increases disproportionately, while transparency and consistency decline.<\/p>

Risk Management and BIA: Where the Problems Arise<\/strong><\/h2>

These challenges are particularly evident in the two core components of BCM: risk analysis and business impact analysis.<\/p>

In risk management, multiple, disparate data sets can quickly accumulate. Risks are maintained in different files, assessment criteria vary, and it is difficult to track measures consistently. Gaining a comprehensive view of the risk landscape often requires a significant amount of manual effort.<\/p>

Business impact analysis reveals another problem: processes are often viewed in isolation. While dependencies between processes, resources, or locations are known, they are difficult to represent in a structured way in tables. As a result, criticality levels are not always directly comparable, and analyses become complex and prone to errors.<\/p>

The result is similar in both cases: no coherent, reliable overall picture emerges.<\/p>

A typical scenario from real life:<\/p>

Several versions of the same analysis are in circulation, adapted by different departments, each with slightly different evaluation criteria.<\/strong><\/p>

Why structured Excel approaches are difficult to scale<\/strong><\/h2>

The challenge here is not that Excel is being used \u201cincorrectly.\u201d On the contrary: many organizations have clear structures and well-thought-out procedures in place. The problem arises when the tool no longer supports that structure.<\/p>

Tables reach their limits when<\/p>