Microsoft steps forward to 1970

I recently came across Microsoft's white paper for spreadsheet compliance. It has the impressive title "Spreadsheet Compliance in the 2007 Microsoft Office System".

Published in 2006, it describes a set of techniques that can be used to ensure the storage and management of spreadsheets comply with regulations.

The document is clearly aimed at corporate managers. It begins with an executive summary, describing the risks of poorly managed spreadsheets and the legal ramifications of noncompliance with regulations.

The good news is that Microsoft recognizes that spreadsheets are important to organizations, contain critical data, and deserve proper design and management. (And if Microsoft recognizes that, then other companies are likely to follow.)

The bad news is that Microsoft recommends the use of waterfall methodology for spreadsheet development. The steps are: define requirements, design, implement, test and verify, and deploy. Microsoft includes a footnote that indicates this process for spreadsheets was based on the waterfall model for software development. (Or perhaps Microsoft does not recommend this model. The text reads "Here is a recommended development approach to creating spreadsheets", in the passive voice. Microsoft, aside from publishing this white paper, makes no direct recommendation for this method. But their white paper recommends it, so Microsoft recommends it. And neither the paper nor Microsoft present alternatives.)

My first thought on this recommendation was "Does Microsoft really believe that design-up-front waterfall methods are good ways to design spreadsheets?" I find it hard to believe, since Microsoft must be using agile techniques for their products -- or at least some of them. The waterfall model -- specifically the big-design-up-front, everything-in-one-cycle approach is simplistic and naive. The plans look good on paper, and it promises delivery on a specific date, but for anything beyond trivial projects it fails.

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't believe that the waterfall method is appropriate, but instead thinks that their customers believe it to be appropriate. I find this more reasonable; many companies -- especially big companies -- use waterfall for their development cycle. So Microsoft recommends not what it thinks best, but what it thinks will sell.

Or perhaps this development method is not important. The white paper goes on to explain the features in various Microsoft products that can help companies manage their spreadsheets. I specifically say "companies" because the products are enterprise solutions, not suitable for individuals or small companies. In this case, the white paper is not a solution for problems, but marketing material.

In any case, the impression of Microsoft is not flattering.