Choosing the Right Tech Tool for Safety: When Microsoft is Enough, and When Software is Non-Negotiable.

It is no news that I am a big advocate of DIY digitisation via tools like Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Power Platform etc.

But it should come as no surprise when I say my preference will always be SOFTWARE. It is easier, faster, more efficient, less stressful and more streamlined. 

Sometimes it may start off costing more, and so my advice to teams who have no money for software is usually to START with Microsoft tools - they have access to these tools and it would usually cost nothing to get started. But it means knowing how to use the different tools, and partaking in “maintenance” work that you will not be doing with software (if bought, not built in-house).

Now, this is no attempt to make a comparison between Microsoft and Software or state which is better. Instead, I will share with you the place of Microsoft and the likes, and the place of software in your management system. Why? Because many seem to think one particular tool is the best for every kind of safety work. Or that Microsoft 365 tools should be enough. It simply isn’t. And because you have access to a software does not mean it should be used for EVERYTHING. Sometimes, simple is better.

Next, let’s look at 3 categories of safety tasks that will help shape this article and help you make better decisions with your digital tools.

These are often ad-hoc or non-critical. They do not deserve a software just for them to happen. For example:

What works in this situation is Microsoft (MS) Forms + Sharepoint List or Excel + Power Automate + Power BI. This combo is perfectly sufficient. Here is one way to use this:

Voila! Watch them form entries trickle in, and your dashboard take shape.

This is simple work. Over-engineering it leads to waste of money.

This is where software becomes non-negotiable.

Picture this.

You decide to digitise incident reporting using a Microsoft Form.

At first, it seems to be going good.

An incident happens. Someone fills in the form. The data is captured. You even get notified.

But now the real safety work begins.

You need to:

This is where the “cracks” in your Microsoft system start to show.

A single Microsoft Form can’t carry an incident from start to finish the way most safety teams work or need to. Truth is, you end up with:

Each piece works, but they are disjointed.

The “process” now lives partly in Forms, partly in email notifications, partly in Excel or SharePoint, partly in people’s inboxes and memory (which they usually forget. Been there, got the t-shirt).

You cannot confidently share a proper answer to:

“What exactly happened with this incident?”

Or you wing it to save face. Risky.

In safety-critical work, an audit trail isn’t a nice to have.

You need to be able to show:

With a Microsoft-based setup:

Sure you can piece it together, but it takes time, effort, and trust (or the lack of it).

Same scenario but the incident is not just a form, but now a living workflow.

From the moment it’s reported:

At every stage, the system records:

No reconstruction or relying on memory, and the data does not live “somewhere else”.

The audit trail is built as the work happens, not after.

The flow is connected and traceable. In software, reporting, investigation, actions, approvals, and closure are connected flows and you don’t need to jump between tools.

Microsoft tools help you collect information. Cool.

Safety software helps you run a system especially when the work is safety-critical or could have high consequences.

Trying to force Microsoft tools to do the work of purpose-built software often results in higher costs - usually from ongoing technical support and maintenance to hidden licensing and dependency risks. If cost savings are the goal, this approach can quickly deliver the opposite outcome - teams are surprised to discover that the “cheaper” option can end up costing more. Ouch.

Let’s be honest.

Safety software is not cheap. Cost can run from ten of thousands of £s to millions.

And safety departments are still too often seen as cost centers.

So while it’s easy to build and present a strong business case for safety software, the answer is frequently “not now” or a resounding “no”.

And even when the answer is yes, affordability becomes the next hurdle.

In budget-constrained or emerging-market environments, the real choice is often not software vs Microsoft but, some digitisation vs none at all. Think about that.

That’s when I advocate for Microsoft or Google digital tools.

Not because they are ideal, but because they work well enough to move organisations forward.

They help teams:

Microsoft becomes an entry point, and often a proof point, when the conversation about software comes back around.

I’ve lived this.

In a previous role, Microsoft Forms is what I used to take us digital before safety software was approved and rolled out.

I built the forms, notifications, and Power Automate flows myself - without IT 😎.

It wasn’t a perfect system.

But it worked.

Where we were not getting accidents reported, they started to get reported. Where we had unstructured data to work with and present to the board, we now had structured data that made analysis, visualisation and reporting so much easier.

And it did something else - it proved that digital safety processes were not only possible but were valuable in saving time and increasing compliance and visibility.

That pattern is exactly why I built NavigatorPRO.

NavigatorPRO was built to help safety leaders build digital confidence, make smart tool choices, and progress, even when budgets, doubt, or internal perceptions makes software adoption slow.

Choosing to start with Microsoft forms is definitely not settling for less and shouldn’t be seen as less than. It will help move your team and organisation steps forward. No doubt.

Start with the work not tools.

I’ve learned that one of the reasons why many safety digitisation efforts fail is not because of technology, but because the wrong tool was chosen. By the time the discovery is made, money has been spent and you are tied into a contract you can escape from.

So how do I choose when recommending Microsoft vs software vs a combination of both.

I use 4 criteria - risk and regulatory exposure, complexity of the process, scale and users, and of course, budget.

One question I always ask myself is this - why is this required, what could go wrong and what legal or regulatory implications could it have?

In a previous role, we often missed or saw reportable accidents too late - way past the timeframe for RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Deaths & Dangerous Occurrences) reports. This often led to enforcement asking that question - “why are you reporting this late?” This late reporting can also come with fines - not always but there's that risk.

Late reporting doesn’t just damage credibility, but can cause financial loss.

So this means, the system I choose must help me protect people and be explainable to regulators as well as meet their stringent requirements. Imagine having to blame a software for late RIDDOR notifications. This happened to me so many times in a previous role that even I began to see the ridiculousness of it.

That’s when it became clear: the problem wasn’t effort, it was system design.

In deciding on a system, I will want the system to provide me with:

If a process carries high risk or regulatory exposure, like the stitched-together tools, it is a no. You may as well continue with your paper, than pretend you have a system that will stand up to scrutiny.

Next question - How complex is this process?

Single-step? Multiple approval and verification levels? Conditional paths (if X, do Y type of scenarios).

Even if it is a short-lived one-off process, high complexity would mean software is the right answer. In my experience, complexity is a much better signal than time.

Software is designed to manage many moving parts like stages, roles, decisions, paths etc, but in a controlled way. That said, I have seen some highly complex flows that even the best software would struggle to support. At this point, you have to decide if the complexity is over-the-top or justified. Sometimes a process redesign to streamline or simplify may be needed before digitising.

After that, I consider scale.

How many users? locations? roles?

Are the users internal or external? What kind of access would they need? What would they be doing on the system? What are the limitations based on user roles or type? With MS forms, external users cannot upload files. This becomes a blocker instantly, if you are working with external contractors and need them to use your system.

Microsoft tools work well when usage is limited, user groups are small, and complexity is minimal and manageable.

As scale increases, complexity may grow faster than people expect - you get more users of varying kinds, more roles, more questions, and increased handoffs that adds friction very quickly. At that point, software can help reduce friction because it enforces consistency.

Let’s now consider the budget, not in isolation from the other criteria.

Budget is a constraint and where it is no problem, software should be the first choice.

If not software, Microsoft form may become the starting point or bridge to software,. as long as the limitations are understood and good planning has gone into its design and planned use.

The worst outcome is doing nothing because the “ideal” solution isn’t immediately available.

When you consider all 4 above, the decision becomes obvious.

And sometimes, the right answer is both. The real skill is knowing not just how to use a tool, but when to use which one, and when to move on. But how do leaders learn this skill?

If you’re early in your digital journey, or you want to build confidence without jumping straight into software decisions, I have two strong starting points, depending on what you need most right now.

​​1. Digital Foundations for QHSE Professionals (CPD Accredited)

This provides foundational digital capability across the full transformation lifecycle.

Digital Foundations is a self-paced and CPD accredited course designed to give QHSE professionals a solid grounding in how digital safety systems actually work, across data collection, analysis, visualisation, and basic automation.

It doesn’t teach you to build a full production system.

But it does teach you the foundational skills across every stage of the digital transformation lifecycle.

Participants are introduced, at a beginner and accessible level, to:

For many professionals, this is enough to start doing very good work.

And for those who are curious, capable, and motivated to keep learning, testing and practising, the skills taught here can absolutely be used to build far more than “basic” solutions. It is exactly how I started, and then I started to build on my skills, explore more tools as my confidence and excitement grew.

Learn more about Digital Foundations here.

This helps you gain technical confidence without becoming “technical”.

If you prefer live learning, the HSE Digital System Build Lab is for you. It is a 3-hour live, hands-on workshop where participants build a simple end-to-end digital HSE system using Microsoft tools, from data collection to reporting and management visibility.

The session combines

✅ live demonstration

✅ guided hands-on practice

✅ live support,

✅ 1-2-1 review

All geared towards helping professionals see how digital HSE systems work in practice, without turning into IT specialists nor needing IT’s support.

By the end of the Build Lab, participants will:

Whilst this program is not about building the perfect system, you will gain a good understanding to know what a good system looks and feels like, and well as what it takes to get there.

Read more about the Build Lab here.

These two offers solve different parts of the problem.

Start with either. NavigatorPRO comes next.

NavigatorPRO is NOT a Microsoft course nor software training, and certainly not a replacement for tools.

It is a capability-building program for safety leaders who want to go deeper and build digital confidence to lead and successfully execute digital programs, and make good system decisions as complexity, risk and scale changes.

Whilst I am an advocate for starting small or where you are (aka Microsoft or even Google), I don’t want people to feel locked into using Microsoft because Ike on LinkedIn always talks about how she uses and teaches Microsoft for safety tasks - this had to be made clear 😅. I am also not for pushing software prematurely.

If you’re still not sure where to begin, start with the Build Live 3-hour workshop. It’s designed as a quick win but also equips you to build your first digital safety system for simple, low-complexity tasks.

I created this flowchart to help you choose. Happy choosing!

P.S. come back here to tell me how it went. Rooting for you.