← Insights

Article · 2 min read

When does a leasing spreadsheet stop being enough?

Andrew Brown · Jul 12, 2026

Quick answer

A leasing spreadsheet stops being enough when concurrency and memory start costing deals: version drift across inboxes, one-writer bottlenecks, two brokers colliding on one suite, expirations surfacing by memory, and no history of how anything moved. The fix is a system of record seeded from the tracker itself — an import, not a project.

Almost every industrial and office leasing operation starts on a spreadsheet, and for good reason: it's fast, flexible, and everyone can read it. The tracker doesn't fail because Excel is bad at math. It fails at concurrency (five people, one file) and memory (what changed, when, and who knew).

What does Excel actually do well?

Be honest about the strengths before replacing them:

  • Zero learning curve for the team and for brokers.
  • A grid is genuinely the right shape for a rent roll snapshot.
  • Total flexibility — a new column costs nothing.

Any replacement has to keep that speed, or the team will quietly go back.

What are the five signs the tracker is breaking?

  1. Version drift — "Leasing_Tracker_FINAL_v3 (2).xlsx" is in three inboxes, and nobody is sure which is current.
  2. One-writer bottleneck — updates wait for the one person who owns the file.
  3. Silent collisions — two brokers work the same suite for different prospects and find out at the LOI stage.
  4. Expirations by memory — renewals surface because someone remembered, not because the lease end date raised its hand.
  5. No history — the tracker shows today's state, never how a deal moved or when a bay went vacant.

If three of the five sound familiar, the spreadsheet is already costing deals — the cost is just invisible because it arrives as "we found out late."

What breaks first — the data or the follow-up?

The follow-up. Data errors are annoying but visible; missed follow-ups are silent. Broker updates arrive by email and text, get read, and evaporate — they never reach the tracker at all. That's why the fix is not "a better spreadsheet" but a system that captures updates where they happen and stages them for review. (It's also why the industry's AI results are so uneven: Colliers describes an "AI productivity gap," with the overwhelming majority of CRE firms piloting AI while only a small fraction reach their goals — pilots bolted beside a broken record don't stick.)

What does the first week off the spreadsheet look like?

Done right, the migration is an import, not a project:

  1. The existing tracker seeds the system — properties, buildings, suites, tenants, leases. (The one we most recently replaced was an 11MB workbook covering a multi-park Central Florida industrial portfolio; it became the live system of record in a weekend.)
  2. The team keeps editing the same facts — now with every change attributed and instant rollups.
  3. Broker updates start flowing in as staged suggestions to review, instead of emails to remember.

The spreadsheet earned its place. Retire it with respect — and keep its best trait, which was never the grid. It was that everyone trusted it.

FAQ

What are the signs a leasing team has outgrown Excel?
Five reliable ones: multiple versions of the tracker circulating by email; updates bottlenecked on one owner; two deals unknowingly competing for the same space; lease expirations surfacing from memory instead of from the data; and no record of how a deal moved. Three or more means the spreadsheet is already costing deals.
How long does it take to move a leasing tracker into a real system?
If the system is seeded directly from the workbook, days — not months. The tracker already holds the portfolio truth (properties, suites, tenants, lease terms); a proper migration imports it rather than re-keying it, and the team starts editing the same facts in a governed system.
Why not just use a shared Google Sheet?
Shared sheets fix simultaneous editing but nothing else: still no data model (a deal can't see its suite), no staged review of incoming broker updates, no computed expirations, and no audit trail of who changed what. Concurrency was only one of the five failures.
What happens to broker updates in a spreadsheet workflow?
Mostly nothing — they arrive by email or text, get read, and never reach the tracker. That silent loss of follow-up is usually the first real cost of staying on Excel, and it's why capture (not prettier grids) is the feature to evaluate in any replacement.

See what this looks like for your firm.

Governed software, configured to how you actually work — built embedded, shipped as something you own and can audit.