What’s wrong with using Excel range names

May 19, 2010

I’ve been talking to a bunch of people about Sumwise recently and when they ask me to give them an example of what it does, I generally say something like this:

In Excel you might write the formula =Sum(X31:X37) to add up the items under the Revenue heading. One problem is that this is cryptic and doesn’t mean anything unless you confirm that the range X31:X37 refers to the items you want. And what if the items actually extend to row 38? It is very hard to check and correct this unless you carefully check and review your formulae.

In Sumwise though, there is no A1-style grid. Rather, rows and columns are referred to by user-defined labels such as Revenue, Hardware, or Jan. In Sumwise, the formula =Sum([Revenue.]) would add up all the rows underneath the Revenue row. The formula means what it says and does not need to be translated to be understood or checked.

The usual response to this is “don’t Excel’s range names do the same thing?” The short (and long) answer is NO! In terms of making your spreadsheet model more understandable and reducing potential errors, Excel’s range names actually compound, rather than solve, the problem. Read the rest of this entry »


Straight-line Depreciation

July 28, 2009

In reviewing a few models today, I was reminded how rare it is to find straight-line depreciation modelled in a concise, neat and accurate way. Although straight-line depreciation is notionally the simplest depreciation method, it is possibly the most difficult to model – as you’ll see below. Read the rest of this entry »


Use the INDIRECT route

May 18, 2009

The Excel INDIRECT function is one many people don’t know about. And for those who do, many/most will tell you not to use it. But I beg to differ. Used correctly and sparingly, this can be a great way to make your models more understandable, and also prevent errors creeping into your models in the future. Read the rest of this entry »