The user's question is a good one, but it points to a deeper truth: the real problem isn't the technical mechanics of Excel. It's the architecture of their entire reporting system. At 120 trackers, each with 40 to 50 individual cross-workbook links, the central sheet isn't just slow. It's fragile. Every update forces Excel to chase down hundreds of references, and that load time will only grow as the organization does. The proposed solution, an export tab that consolidates the data into a single array, is a step in the right direction, but it's still a patch on a system that was never designed for scale.
Here's the practical takeaway: arrays do work more efficiently than scattered individual references. When Excel can pull a contiguous block of cells in one operation, it reduces the number of separate lookups the calculation engine has to perform. That's not speculation. It's how the software handles dependencies. But the efficiency gain is marginal compared to what happens when you stop linking to 120 separate workbooks altogether. The export tab idea is smart, but it still leaves you with 120 external file dependencies. Every time a project tracker is opened, Excel recalculates those links. Every time a file is moved or renamed, the central sheet breaks. You're not solving the root issue. You're just tidying the symptoms.
What this user actually needs, and what we'd argue is the more progressive path, is to stop treating the central sheet as a destination for scattered cells and start treating it as a living dashboard that pulls from a single, structured data source. The export tab is a good intermediate step, but the better move is to have each project write its key metrics to a shared location, whether that's a database, a cloud service, or even a dedicated summary file that's the only thing the central sheet references. That way, you're not linking 120 workbooks. You're linking one file per project, or better yet, you're using a tool that handles the aggregation for you.
We understand the instinct to work within the tools you have. Excel is familiar, and it's capable. But when you're managing 120 trackers, the cost of that familiarity is your time and your sanity. The user's question about arrays is legitimate, but it's the wrong question. The right question is: how do I reduce the number of moving parts in my reporting system? The answer isn't a clever formula. It's a structural change. If you're maintaining a central sheet that pulls from over a hundred workbooks, you've already outgrown the spreadsheet's original design. Start consolidating at the source, and let the central sheet do what it's actually good at: showing you the picture, not chasing every thread.