When teams start looking for Excel training, one question almost always comes up early: Should this be custom?
The reasoning is usually straightforward. Our data is different. Our workflows are different. Our reporting needs are different. Therefore, the training should be different too.
Sometimes that’s true. But most of the time, it isn’t.
In practice, expecting a fully custom solution is frequently a crutch: a way to compensate for uncertainty, misalignment, or missing fundamentals rather than a genuine requirement. Understanding when customization actually adds value, and when it simply adds complexity, can save a lot of time and money.
What most teams actually need from Excel training
Most Excel training requests are framed around tools: formulas, Power Query, PivotTables, Power Pivot, Python in Excel, or Copilot. But when you look a little closer, the underlying issues are rarely about features.
Teams struggle because:
- Data isn’t structured consistently
- People don’t agree on definitions or metrics
- Analyses can’t be trusted without rework
- Outputs don’t land with decision-makers
Those problems don’t come from Excel being misconfigured. They come from gaps in how people reason about data inside Excel.
Off-the-shelf training works well because it focuses on shared fundamentals: how to structure workbooks, how to think about transformations, how to validate results, and how to communicate clearly. Those skills apply whether you’re in finance, operations, marketing, or analytics. And they don’t depend on your internal file structure or reporting cadence.
Why “we’re unique” is often a warning sign
Almost every organization is unique in some ways. Very few are unique in ways that fundamentally change how Excel should be used.
When teams insist that training must be custom from day one, it’s often a signal that:
- There isn’t agreement on what “good” looks like
- Different stakeholders want different outcomes
- The real problem hasn’t been clearly defined yet
Customization starts to stand in for clarity.
Instead of deciding what the training should accomplish, the scope expands to include everything. Training quietly becomes consulting. Expectations grow. And the end result is often slower, more expensive, and less effective than starting with a strong baseline.
Off-the-shelf doesn’t mean generic
There’s a misconception that off-the-shelf training is generic or superficial. In reality, well-designed training has usually been pressure-tested across dozens or hundreds of teams.
That’s its strength.
It teaches:
- How to structure data so analysis doesn’t fall apart later
- How to spot fragile logic before it causes problems
- How to sanity-check outputs instead of trusting them blindly
- How to explain results to non-technical stakeholders
These are transferable skills. They’re durable even as tools change. And they’re exactly what teams lack when they rely too heavily on custom workflows they don’t fully understand.
When customization actually makes sense
Customization isn’t inherently bad. It’s just frequently applied too early.
Custom Excel training works best after teams:
- Share a common vocabulary and baseline skill level
- Agree on what decisions Excel is meant to support
- Understand the limits of the tools they’re using
At that point, tailoring examples, datasets, or exercises to your domain can reinforce learning rather than distract from it. Customization adds leverage only when there’s something solid to customize on top of.
Without that foundation, custom training often increases cognitive load and creates dependency on whoever designed the solution.
Training vs. consulting: know which one you’re asking for
Excel training should make teams more self-sufficient. Consulting often does the opposite, at least initially. Both have a place, but they serve different goals.
If you want someone to redesign your reporting processes, rationalize tooling, and tell you what to do next, that’s consulting. If you want a team that can reason more clearly about data, troubleshoot their own work, and make better decisions inside Excel, that’s training.
Expecting training to behave like consulting is one of the fastest ways to overspend while under-delivering.
A quick self-evaluation before asking for custom training
Before deciding that your Excel training must be custom, it’s worth asking a few honest questions:
1. Do people on your team agree on what a “good” Excel model or analysis looks like?
If not, fundamentals are missing.
2. Are disagreements mostly about business decisions—or about methods, definitions, and logic?
If it’s the latter, off-the-shelf training is likely the better starting point.
3. Would new hires benefit from the same training you’re considering?
If yes, it probably isn’t as custom as it feels.
4. Are you trying to use training to resolve process uncertainty?
Training supports clarity. It doesn’t create it.
5. Would this training still be valuable if your tools or systems changed next year?
If not, the solution may be too brittle.
Discomfort with these questions isn’t a failure. It’s usually a signal that shared foundations will deliver more value than customization right now.
If you’re deciding between custom and off-the-shelf Excel training
If this post resonates, the next step isn’t jumping straight into a custom proposal. It’s usually a short conversation to clarify what kind of engagement will actually help.
I use brief discovery calls to understand:
- What decisions your team is trying to support
- Where the real friction is (skills, structure, tooling, or process)
- Whether off-the-shelf training, light customization, or consulting is the right fit
Sometimes the answer is training. Sometimes it’s consulting. And sometimes the most useful answer is not yet.
If you’d like to have that conversation, you can book a short discovery call here: