If the Excel file is just a snapshot of the financial situation and it doesn't feed back into the main system, I find it harder to see the issue. Essentially it sounds like a manager takes the Excel file, makes some small changes, writes some equations, produces tables/graphs and then writes a report.
Maybe there is an error in the reporting, but it can always be corrected. The idea isn't to explain where $16.129626356 bn dollars went, it's to explain where ~$16 bn dollars went.
I can think of many processes just off the top of my head where commercial software outputs something like a CSV file, I add my data to it, then generate a report. I don't think the process is insane at all. We catch errors by predicting the data to be entered and flagging if off by 10%, and then also looking at the distribution of the data entered (it should look like a skewed bell curve). We then have a stand-up meeting where we review the outputs and then have a process for later correction. Of course it's possible for errors to creep in, but the errors are very unlikely and have somewhat limited scope.
My point is that the situation in NZ seems entirely resolvable, and they shouldn't just throw it out if it was somewhat working. The whole "Excel" thing seems like a nothing-burger.
If you spend a billion and a couple years redoing the generally working system to (maybe!) increase the number of significant digits on a dashboard for no good reason, you may have screwed up even more.
Maybe there is an error in the reporting, but it can always be corrected. The idea isn't to explain where $16.129626356 bn dollars went, it's to explain where ~$16 bn dollars went.
I can think of many processes just off the top of my head where commercial software outputs something like a CSV file, I add my data to it, then generate a report. I don't think the process is insane at all. We catch errors by predicting the data to be entered and flagging if off by 10%, and then also looking at the distribution of the data entered (it should look like a skewed bell curve). We then have a stand-up meeting where we review the outputs and then have a process for later correction. Of course it's possible for errors to creep in, but the errors are very unlikely and have somewhat limited scope.
My point is that the situation in NZ seems entirely resolvable, and they shouldn't just throw it out if it was somewhat working. The whole "Excel" thing seems like a nothing-burger.