When Smartsheet Actually Makes Sense

I am generally sceptical of tools being presented as solutions. Most of the execution problems I see in payments and fintech have very little to do with software choice, and a great deal to do with unclear ownership, fragmented workflows, and an over-reliance on spreadsheets and email to hold things together.

That scepticism matters, because it shapes when I think a platform is genuinely helpful and when it is simply adding another layer of complexity. Smartsheet falls firmly into the first category, but only in very specific circumstances.

Smartsheet is not a silver bullet. It is not a compliance system, a system of record, or a substitute for core platforms. Where it works well is in the space between those systems. It is most effective where work needs to be coordinated across teams, decisions need to be tracked through to delivery, and spreadsheets have quietly become the backbone of execution.

That space is larger than most organisations admit.

The problem it actually solves

In many scaling payments and fintech businesses, execution is held together by good intentions and a patchwork of trackers. Nothing is obviously broken. People are working hard. But ownership is implicit rather than explicit, updates are buried in inboxes, and no one can say with confidence where things really stand without calling a meeting.

Spreadsheets persist because they are flexible and familiar. Over time, they also become brittle. Versions proliferate. Logic is hidden. Accountability becomes inferred rather than clear. The spreadsheet stops being a tool and starts being an obstacle, but replacing it feels risky because it has become embedded in how work happens.

This is the gap Smartsheet can fill well. Not by automating judgement or enforcing rigid processes, but by providing a visible execution layer that makes ownership, status, and follow-through explicit.

What it is, and what it is not

Used properly, Smartsheet functions as a coordination layer rather than a destination system. It sits above specialist tools and alongside core platforms, making work visible across functional boundaries without trying to replace systems that already do their job.

It is not well suited to running core transactions or performing regulatory checks. It does not decide outcomes. What it does is make clear who is responsible for what, what stage something is at, and where things are stuck. That may sound basic, but in practice it is where execution most often breaks down.

The danger lies in trying to turn Smartsheet into something it is not. When it is treated as a lightweight orchestration layer, it tends to work well. When it is treated as a full workflow engine or a pseudo-ERP, it quickly becomes unwieldy.

A practical example

One payments business I worked with was running client onboarding and related compliance activity across a mix of spreadsheets, shared folders, and email threads. The process had evolved organically and, on the surface, it functioned. Clients were onboarded. Checks were completed. Regulators had not raised concerns.

The problem was confidence and control. No one could see, at a glance, where onboarding volume was building up, which cases were genuinely blocked, or where capacity was being absorbed. Updates were chased manually. Escalation happened late, if at all.

Rather than attempting wholesale system replacement, we introduced Smartsheet as an execution backbone. Each onboarding case became a single, visible record with clear ownership, defined stages, and simple status indicators. Analysts updated progress directly. Automated reminders replaced ad hoc chasing. Management could see bottlenecks without asking for separate reports.

Nothing about the underlying compliance checks changed. The judgement stayed with the people doing the work. What changed was visibility and cadence. Meetings became shorter and more focused. Issues surfaced earlier. The organisation gained confidence that what it thought was happening actually was.

That shift alone justified the change.

Why it works in regulated environments

There is often a concern that tools like Smartsheet are too informal for regulated contexts. In my experience, the opposite is usually true.

Regulators care about accountability, consistency, and evidence. A controlled execution layer that makes ownership explicit and preserves an audit trail of updates is almost always an improvement on loosely governed spreadsheets and inboxes. Provided sensitive data is handled appropriately and specialist systems are used where they should be, Smartsheet can strengthen rather than weaken operational control.

The key is to be clear about its role. It supports the operating model. It does not replace it.

A measured view

Smartsheet is not the right answer everywhere. In environments that require full straight-through processing or deeply codified workflows, heavier platforms make more sense. In smaller teams, spreadsheets may still be sufficient.

But in the space between those extremes, where organisations have outgrown informal coordination but are not ready or willing to commit to large-scale workflow systems, Smartsheet is one of the few platforms I have seen used well, consistently, and without creating new fragility.

That is why I rate it. Not because it promises transformation, but because it helps execution hold when things start to get complicated.

For teams looking to apply this thinking in practice, practical implementation work is carried out separately at Work Flow Systems.