The spreadsheet is a signal, not a problem
A spreadsheet doing load-bearing work is usually the most accurate specification an organisation has. It is worth reading before replacing.
Almost every digitalisation project we are asked about starts with a spreadsheet that has grown beyond what a spreadsheet should do. It has colour conventions, a sheet nobody dares delete, a column that means different things depending on the row, and one person who understands the formulas.
Why it exists
It exists because someone needed to get work done and the available systems did not fit. That makes it evidence: it is a specification written by the people doing the work, refined by daily use, and never softened by a procurement process. Before replacing it, read it.
What to look for
Three things are usually worth extracting. First, the entities — what is actually being tracked, and what is a single row. Second, the states — the words in the status column are the real workflow, whatever the process documentation says. Third, the exceptions — the rows highlighted in a different colour are the cases the future system has to handle gracefully, because they are the ones that occur in practice.
What a system should add
A replacement earns its place by adding what a spreadsheet structurally cannot: validation at the point of entry, concurrent editing without conflict, access control, history, and the ability to answer a question without opening the file. If a proposed system does not add those, the spreadsheet is still the better tool.
A note on dignity
The person who built and maintains that spreadsheet has been quietly holding a process together, often for years. They are also the best source of requirements in the building. Starting the project by treating their work as the problem is both unkind and a waste of the most useful knowledge available.