An organisation implements an HSE platform, configures processes, migrates information, creates users, delivers training and puts the system into production. The goal is clear: centralise information, reduce manual work, improve traceability and gradually replace Excel sheets, emails and scattered files. However, a few months later, users go back to Excel and spreadsheets reappear. One team creates a spreadsheet to track pending actions, another keeps a parallel list of workers and someone manually prepares the list of documents about to expire. Meanwhile, some managers keep asking for information by email before making a decision.
It is easy to read this situation as user resistance to change. Sometimes there is genuine resistance, but that explanation is too simple. When people who already have an enterprise platform keep creating parallel tools, it is worth looking at what drives them to do so. In most cases, users do not choose Excel because they deliberately prefer to work outside the system. Instead, they choose it because they have a need to address and have found a faster, more flexible or clearer way to do it there.
In these cases, Excel is not necessarily the problem. It is often the symptom that some part of the digital process is not yet working as it should.
When users go back to Excel, there is often a legitimate need
Imagine an HSE team that must track, every day, workers with pending documentation, training close to expiry and equipment awaiting inspection. The platform holds all this information, but getting it requires several filters, different screens or an administrator’s help. So one user exports the data to Excel to see everything in a single table. The solution works. The next day, they update the file. Then they share it with a colleague. A few weeks later, that sheet is already part of the process.
The same can happen in document management. The platform controls the documentation of companies and workers, but a particular team needs a specific view by site. Since that information is not immediately available in the way they want, the team creates a parallel list. At first, it is only for follow-up. Later, the team adds comments, owners and dates. Gradually, part of the operational knowledge leaves the platform and moves into the file.
None of these decisions is necessarily irrational. On the contrary, the user is trying to do their job. The problem is that, when these workarounds become established, the organisation starts to lose some of the benefits that justified implementing the platform. Different versions of the same information appear, along with data updated at different times and controls without a structured history. Decisions also start to rely on files whose content may no longer reflect the real status of the system.
For an HSE function, this fragmentation is particularly relevant. Information on compliance, requirements, corrective actions, training or a worker’s status must be reliable at the moment someone consults it. If the platform shows one situation and the Excel sheet shows another, a critical question immediately arises: which of the two reflects reality?
When the platform adds work instead of removing it
One of the main drivers of adoption for any platform is the balance between the effort required from users and the value they get in return. If doing a task digitally takes more steps than the previous process, the tendency to look for alternatives grows. This is especially clear in operational settings, where users do not sit in front of a computer all day. A technician carrying out an inspection, a supervisor overseeing a team, a worker reporting an incident or a contractor submitting documentation all want to finish the task and get back to work.
This is where small configuration decisions can have a huge impact. Consider a form with unnecessary fields, information entered more than once, successive screens to complete a task or approvals that add no real decision. During implementation, these may seem like details. Multiplied by hundreds or thousands of uses, however, they turn into operational friction. And friction creates shortcuts.
That is why digitising a process cannot simply mean reproducing on the platform everything that previously existed on paper, in email or in Excel. Indeed, some organisations built processes over the years precisely to make up for the limitations of the tools available. If the new platform replicates them in full, the technology changes, but the complexity remains.
For HSE professionals, this reflection is particularly important. There are controls that no one should simplify just for convenience, because they meet safety, compliance or traceability requirements. But there are also steps that have built up over time without anyone questioning their usefulness again. An implementation is an opportunity to tell one from the other.
The platform should digitise what the organisation needs to control, but it should also remove what no longer adds value.
Field users must be part of the process design
Managers, project leads, IT, HSE and technology suppliers make many implementation decisions in meetings. These people have an essential view of requirements, safety, governance and project goals. However, there is another equally important perspective: that of the people who will use the process every day.
A feature may look simple in a demo and prove impractical in the field. In addition, the device in use may differ from the one the team tested. Connectivity can also fail. Users may be wearing PPE, moving between areas or have only a few minutes to finish. As a result, a procedure that seems fine on a computer can become far too complex on a phone or tablet.
The same principle applies to document management. Whoever designs a process may think it is obvious where to submit a document, which naming to use or why a status exists. For a contractor who logs in a few times a month, however, the experience can be completely different. If they do not understand the request, they will look for help, send the document by email or find another channel. At that point, the adoption problem also becomes an administrative problem for the team that must handle that information manually.
Involving real users before finalising the configuration makes it possible to detect this gap. The aim is not to hand the process design to end users. Rather, it is to test whether the design works in the conditions in which people will actually use it. For HSE, this is particularly important because the quality and quantity of information depend directly on how easy it is to take part. A little-used reporting system does not necessarily produce a safer operation; it may simply produce less information about what really happens.
Users also go back to Excel when the platform does not respond quickly enough to change
There is yet another common reason why parallel processes appear: operations change faster than the platform.
A new project arrives with specific requirements. Then a client starts requiring certain documentation. Or a role needs a new competence. Management creates an additional indicator. The organisation wants to track a situation that did not exist when the team implemented the solution. If every small change involves a long process, custom development or several levels of technical approval, users look for an immediate answer. And the most accessible tool is usually Excel, once again.
This shows why platform configurability matters so much. Fields, requirements, workflows, statuses, notifications, dashboards and rules should be able to evolve without turning every operational need into a development project. However, configurability does not mean a lack of control. A change to a requirement can affect hundreds of workers; a change to a workflow can alter approvals; a new permission can change access to information. Autonomy must go hand in hand with governance.
The organisation therefore needs a model that can respond to change quickly, but also consistently. Internal administrators may handle some changes, the implementation partner should support others and certain needs will require the vendor’s involvement. What matters is having a defined process and a platform that can keep up with operations without constantly forcing users to build parallel systems.
This is precisely where technical support, functional administration and adoption meet. A team may implement a platform very well and still see it gradually lose engagement if nobody can adapt it as the business evolves.
If users go back to Excel, eliminating it should not be the goal
In a digital transformation project, it is tempting to set the goal of “getting rid of Excel”. But this is not necessarily the right approach. In fact, Excel remains an extremely useful tool for analysis, data exploration and countless business tasks. The problem arises when a spreadsheet quietly replaces part of a process that should be under control on the corporate platform.
So, instead of asking how many Excel files still exist, it may be more useful to understand why they exist. What need are they meeting? Which information is not accessible enough? Does any process seem too complex? Which task is still manual? What decision can users not make directly from the platform?
These questions turn parallel processes into a source of information about the implementation itself.
If users constantly export certain data, it may be necessary to create a more suitable view or dashboard. Similarly, if they keep their own lists of pending items, the existing statuses and alerts may not be clear enough. If they use Excel to consolidate information from different projects, there may be a need for cross-project reporting. Finally, if they manually track expiry dates, automation and notifications may need reviewing.
The aim is not to force users to abandon a tool by decree. It is to ensure they no longer need it to carry out that process.
This difference is essential. You cannot impose adoption. You build it when the platform genuinely becomes the simplest, safest and most reliable way to do the work.
For HSE, parallel processes also mean a loss of visibility
When a significant part of the activity remains outside the platform, there is an additional risk for those managing HSE: the information available may no longer reflect the full reality of the organisation.
A dashboard can only show what teams have recorded. For example, a low incident rate does not necessarily mean there are few hazards if people report some situations through other channels. Likewise, a corrective action indicator may look positive while some teams keep their own controls. Similarly, a compliance report may miss exceptions if teams record some decisions in local files.
That is why adopting an HSE platform is not just a matter of technology or productivity. It directly affects the quality of the data used to manage safety, compliance and risk.
The greater the adherence to the common process, the more complete the information tends to be. And the more complete the information, the better the ability to identify patterns, compare projects, anticipate problems and make decisions.
It is this relationship that makes it important to watch seemingly simple signs, such as the appearance of parallel Excel sheets.
They may not represent a serious problem. But they may be telling the organisation that the platform is not yet solving something in the best way.
The question is not “Why do they keep using Excel?”
When users go back to Excel or to parallel tools after a platform goes live, the first reaction should not be to blame them for the lack of engagement.
The more useful question is a different one:
“What need are they trying to meet outside the platform, and why can they not meet it inside?”
The answer may lie in training, configuration or workflow design. It may equally lie in a feature that does not yet exist, a recent change in operations or simply a process that is still too complex.
Identifying that cause makes it possible to improve the solution.
That is why no one should consider an HSE or document management platform finished when it goes live. Teams should keep observing, adjusting and improving it as users and the organisation learn from real use.
After all, the real goal of digital transformation is not to replace an Excel sheet with a screen.
It is to create a way of working that is simpler, more controlled, more traceable and more useful for those who need to make decisions.
When that happens, nobody needs to force users to abandon parallel processes.
They simply stop needing them.
To go further: HSE platform and HSE digitalisation: The complete guide.
See also: Technical support for HSE platforms: Implementation is only the beginning and Configuring HSE platforms: From the meeting room to use in the field.
Finally, for further guidance on occupational safety and health, visit EU-OSHA.