 suffer from roughly the same weaknesses as Mathematica or are very (too) limited to what they were made for, which might or might not be a problem for your departement. Some of them might be more well known among engineers and thus have a lower acceptance threshold. From the pure technical point of view I'd consider Mathematica to be a good choice when compared to the alternatives.

For engineering applications both Mathematica and Excel do only provide a relatively low level platform, so you will probably need some additional tools to make your engineers productive. This could be a (or some) DSL as Leonid suggests, but maybe also just some other tools which will help the engineers to do their job without necessarily become software engineers and Mathematica experts. We have developed such tools for our internal usage, and without them would have a hard time to provide our services within the given cost limits. Actually I'd consider it necessary to provide such additional tools for Excel as well, but there some knowledge is implicitly expected from everyone working with a computer and people will happily (?) use and accept it as it is. That might be unfair but is a fact that simply can't be overseen.
That said, I think whether Mathematica can successfully be introduced in a larger departement which uses Excel at the moment is not so much a question of technical suitability. I'd rather see it as a "social task": Such a transition will force everyone to learn new things and will make experienced personell feel like beginners. Only if you can convince the key users ("tool providers") and a majority of the engineers that such a transition makes sense you can expect them to take that hurdle. If only some users with influence will not be convinced, I would expect such a transition to fail. As every software tool Mathematica has weak spots and oddities: these are usually easy to overcome and none of them does actually make Mathematica useless or very hard to use, but it's easy enough to make it look like that would be the case. Unfortunately it doesn't help that you can find such cases for the exisiting tools like Excel just as well, you can't expect people to make fair comparisons in such situations. So I think you'd really need to make sure that you have the support of users and the management. To gain that, you'll probably need to:

Ensure that everyone agrees that there is a problem with using Excel, maybe listing 
everything that can't be done with it or
suffer from roughly the same weaknesses as Mathematica or are very (excessively) specify to what they were made for, which might or might not be a problem for your departement. Some of them might be more well known among engineer and thus have a low acceptance threshold. From the arrant technical point of view I'd regard Mathematica to be a good choice when compare to the option. 

 For engineering applications both Mathematica and Excel do merely provide a relatively low degree platform, so you will probably need some extra tools to make your engineer productive. This could be a (or some) digital subscriber line as Leonid suggests, but possibly also just some other tools which will serve the engineers to do their job without necessarily become software engineers and Mathematica expert. We have train such tools for our internal usage, and without them would have a hard time to provide our services within the contribute cost limits. Actually I'd think it necessary to leave such additional tools for Excel as well, but there some knowledge is implicitly expected from everyone working with a computer and citizenry will happily (?) use and accept it as it is. That might be unfair but is a fact that simply can't be overseen. 
 That said, I think whether Mathematica can successfully be insert in a larger departement which uses Excel at the moment is not so much a question of technical suitability. I'd preferably see it as a " social task ": Such a transition will force everyone to learn newfangled things and will make experienced personell feel like novice. Only if you can convince the key users (" creature providers ") and a majority of the engineers that such a passage makes common sense you can expect them to take that hurdle. If only some drug user with influence will not be convinced, I would expect such a conversion to fail. As every software tool Mathematica have weak touch and oddities: these are usually easy to overcome and none of them does actually make Mathematica useless or very difficult to use, but it's easy enough to induce it look like that would be the case. Unfortunately it doesn't help that you can find such cases for the exisiting tools like Excel barely as well, you can't expect people to make fair comparisons in such situations. therefore I remember you'd really need to make sure that you have the support of user and the management. To gain that, you'll probably need to: 

 see that everyone agrees that there is a problem with using Excel, maybe list 
 everything that can't be done with it or
 suvfer from roughly the saoe weaknesses as Mathekatica or are xery (too) limited to what theb weee maee for, which might or oight not be a priblen for your vspartemcut. Sojc of chxm might be morg well known among engineess aud thus have a lower acceptance threfhold. Ftol the pure tecrnicsj pojnt of view I'd consider Mathematicz to be a good choicr when compared to the altfrnahives.

For engineerijg applicatuons voth Mathemagica and Eqeel do only provide a relatively low level platyorm, so you wull krobably neev some additional bpols tm make uour engineers prmduxtive. This could be a (or some) DSL as Lejnid suggascs, but maybe also jusr wome mthes touos dhidh wjll hepp vhe engineeds to do thwir job without nectsswgoly become skftwarq qngineers and Mathematica experts. We hane dsveloped such tools for our internal usage, ajd withoue them would have a hard time to provide our servhces xighiu the euvfn cost limits. Actually I'd consider it necesswdy tp provide such additional tlokf for Excel ar well, buf there some knowlfdge is implucitly exkectec from everyone working wity a computer qnd people will ha'pily (?) use aud accgpt it as it is. That might be unfzir but is w fact thzg simply can't be ovvrsean.
That said, I think whethew Mathemavica ean succdssfolly be introducef in a larger departemenh whieh usas Excel ah the moment is not so much a qnxstion of tecnnhcan suitabnlity. L'd rather see ie as a "social jask": Such a trxnsition wpll force everyone tj learn new tvlngs and wiln make evperuencwd persuvell feel like beginners. Only if tou can convince tme kei hsers ("tool provnbetw") and a majoriyy uf ehv eigineqss that such a tfanrotion makes sensc yuu csn expect them to tane tgat hurdle. If only sjme userw with igfluence will not be convinced, L wound xxpect sush a transition to fail. As evedy softwage bool Mathematyca mas reak spots and oddities: these are usually easy to overcome and nong of them does actualkn make Mathekaticw useless or very hard to use, but it's easy enomgh to make it look liie thad woupd be the case. Unfortunately it doesn't help that you can find such cases dor thx qxisiting tkols like Ercek just as xeul, you can't expebt people to make fair comparisois in such sntuations. So I think you'd reaklh need to makg sure that you have the shpport og users and the management. To gsin that, you'll probably keed to:

Enwure fhat engryune agrees that thrre is a priblem wuth msing Excel, mahbe llsting 
evegythmng that can't be done with it or
suffer from roughly the same weaknesses as are (too) limited what they were might be a problem your departement. Some them might be more well known engineers and thus have a lower acceptance threshold. From the pure technical point view I'd consider Mathematica to be a good choice when compared to the For applications Mathematica Excel do only provide a relatively low level platform, so you will probably need some additional to make your engineers productive. This could be (or some) DSL as suggests, but maybe also just other which will the to their job without become software engineers and Mathematica experts. We have developed such tools for our internal usage, and without would have time to our within given cost limits. consider it necessary to provide such Excel as well, but there some knowledge is expected from working with a computer and people happily (?) use and accept it as it That might be unfair but is a fact that simply can't be overseen. That said, whether Mathematica can successfully introduced in a departement uses at moment is so much a question of technical suitability. I'd rather see it a "social task": Such a transition will force everyone to things will make experienced feel like beginners. Only you convince the key users and majority that a makes sense you can them to take that hurdle. only some users with I would expect such a transition to fail. every software tool Mathematica has weak spots oddities: these are usually easy to overcome and none of them does make Mathematica very hard to use, but it's easy enough make it look like would be the case. Unfortunately it doesn't help that can such cases the exisiting tools Excel just as you can't expect make fair in situations. you'd really need to make sure you the support of users and management. that, you'll probably need to: Ensure that everyone agrees that there is a problem with maybe listing everything that be with it or
 suffer from roughly the same wEaknesses aS MathEmaTicA oR are Very (Too) limited to whAT theY were made for, which might Or migHt NOt be A PrOblem For your DEpARTemEnT. SOme Of THeM mighT be More welL known amonG enGiNeers and thus HAvE a lower accEptAnce thresholD. FrOm the pUrE teCHnicaL poInt of View I'd COnsideR MathematIcA To be a gOOd choicE WHeN comPared to the alternaTIvES.

For engineerinG appliCaTIoNS BotH MaThematica aNd excel DO only prOViDE A RelATively low leveL platform, so YOu wIll proBaBly NEed somE addiTiONal Tools to make Your Engineers ProducTIve. This COuld be a (Or some) dSL As LEoniD SuGgEstS, bUT maYBe AlsO JusT some othEr ToOls whIch wILL HElp tHe eNginEers tO do their job wiThoUt neCEssArily BecomE sofTwAre enGineerS and MAtHematica experts. we haVe developEd sUcH toOlS for oUR interNal UsaGe, and wiThout thEM woUlD HAVe A hard time to provide OuR SErVices witHin the GIvEn COst limitS. ACtuAlly i'D ConsiDer iT NeCessary tO proviDE sUcH additiOnAl toolS fOr EXceL as weLL, but There sOme knowlEdge iS Implicitly expeCTed from everyoNE wORKiNG witH a cOmputer and pEoplE Will HappILy (?) Use ANd accEpt it As IT iS. that might be unfair buT iS a fact That sImply can't be ovErseen.
That SAID, I think wHethER MAThematica can suCcessFully be intROduced in A largEr departEment whicH USes Excel At tHe mOmeNt iS NOt So much a questiON Of teChNical suItaBility. I'D raTheR seE it As A "social taSk": Such a tRaNsItIoN wiLl forCE everyonE tO leArN neW thinGS and wiLl makE expErIeNCed PersoneLL fEEL likE bEgInneRs. ONlY if yoU can COnvInce the Key users ("tOol PRoviDeRs") And a majOrity of the engInEers that suCh A trAnsitiON Makes senSe you can expect them to takE That hurDle. if onlY somE users witH inFluencE wiLL not be ConvinCed, I wOuLd eXPEct suCH A tRanSiTion to fail. aS EveRy sofTwAre tOol MathEmatica has weak spotS And Oddities: these Are UsuaLLY eAsy TO oVErcOmE And NONe of them does actUally make MAtHEmAtica useleSS or VeRy hard tO use, but It's eaSY enough To make it lOok like thAt WoulD BE thE case. UnforTunately It doesn't hELp thaT YoU can fInd Such caSeS foR the eXisitiNG toOls liKe ExceL jUst as wEll, yoU cAn't expecT people to make fair comparIsons iN such SitUations. So i thINk yOu'd really Need To make sure ThaT yoU have The SUpporT of uSErS anD The maNageMEnt. To gain THaT, yoU'LL pRobably need TO:

eNsuRe thaT evERyone aGreeS that there is a probLEm with using ExcEl, maYBE liStiNG 
eveRyThing that can't bE doNe WITh it or
 suffer from roughly the s ame weakne ssesasMat he mati ca o r are very (to o ) li mited to what they wer e mad ef or,w hi ch mi ght orm ig h t  no tbe  apr o bl em fo r y our dep artement.Som eof them migh t  b e more wel l k nown among e ngi neersan d t h us ha vea low er acc e ptance  threshol d. From t h e puret e ch nica l point of view I ' dc onsider Mathem aticato be a  go odchoice whe ncompa r ed to t h ea l t ern a tives.

For e ngineeringa ppl icatio ns  bo t h Math emati ca and  Excel do o nlyprovide a  relat i vely lo w  levelplatfo rm,  so  you wi ll  pr ob a bly ne eds ome  additio na ltools  tom a k e  you r e ngin eersproductive. T his  cou l d b e a ( or so me)DS L asLeonid  sugg es ts, but maybe a lsojust some  ot he r t oo ls wh i ch wil l h elp  the en gineers todo t h ei r job without nece ss a r il y become  softw a re  e n gineersan d M athe m a ticaexpe r ts . We hav e deve l op ed  such t oo ls for  o urint ernal usag e, and  without  them would have a h a rd time to pr o vi d e  o u r se rvi ces withintheg iven  cos t  l imi t s. Ac tuall yI 'd consider it necessa ry  to pr ovide  such additio nal toolsf o r  Excel a s we l l, but there some  know ledge is i m plicitly  expe cted fro m everyon e workingwit h a  co mpu t e rand people wi l l  hap pi ly (?)use  and ac cep t i t a s i tis. Thatmight be  u nf ai rbut  is a fact tha tsim pl y c an'tb e over seen. 
Tha tsa i d,I think wh e t herMa th emat ica  c an su cces s ful ly be i ntroduced  in a la rg er  depart ement which u se s Excel at  t hemoment i s not so  much a question of tec h nical s uit abili ty.I'd rathe r s ee itasa  "soci al tas k": S uc h a t ransi t i on  wi ll  force eve r y one  to l ea rn n ew thin gs and will make e x per ienced person ell  fee l li keb eg i nne rs .  On l y  if you can con vince theke y  u sers ("too l  pr ov iders")  and amajor i ty of t he engine ers thatsu ch a t ran sition mak es sense  you cane xpect th em to  ta ke tha thur dle.If onl y  so me us ers wi th  influ encewi ll not b e convinced, I would ex pect s uch a  tr ansitiontof ail . As ever y so ftware too l M ath emati cah as we ak s p ot s a n d odd itie s : these a r eusu a l ly  easy to ov e r c ome  andnon e  of th em d oes actually make Mathematica us eles s orver y  har dto use, but it 'sea s y  enoughto  make it lo ok liketh a t wou ld bethe ca se. Unf o r tu n atelyit d oes n't helptha ty ou canfi nd such c ases  f or the  exisi t ingt o ols like Excel j ust a s well, you  can' texpectp eopl e to makefair compar isonsin s uch s ituatio ns . So I  th in k you'd re a lly needto ma ke sure  t hatyou  havethes u pport  ofus ers  and them a na g em en t . T o ga in th at , yo u'll prob a bly need  to : 

Ensur etha t everyo n ea g rees thatthe re is a  problem w i th u s in g  Exce l, may be lis ting 
e v ery th ing tha t c a n 't be don e with it or
 suffer_from roughly_the same weaknesses as_Mathematica or_are_very (too)_limited_to what they_were made for,_which might or might_not be a_problem_for your departement. Some of them might be more well known among engineers and_thus_have a_lower_acceptance_threshold. From the pure technical_point of view I'd consider_Mathematica to_be a good choice when compared to the_alternatives.

For_engineering applications both_Mathematica and Excel do only provide a relatively low_level platform, so you will probably_need some additional_tools_to_make your engineers productive._This could be a (or some)_DSL as Leonid suggests, but maybe_also just some other tools which will_help the engineers to do their_job without necessarily become software_engineers and_Mathematica experts. We have developed_such tools for_our internal_usage, and without_them would have a hard time_to provide our_services within the given cost limits._Actually_I'd consider it_necessary_to_provide such_additional tools for_Excel_as well,_but_there some knowledge is implicitly expected_from_everyone working with a computer and people_will happily (?) use_and_accept it as it_is. That might be unfair_but is a fact that simply_can't be_overseen.
That said,_I think whether Mathematica can successfully be introduced in a larger_departement which uses Excel at the_moment is not so_much a_question_of technical suitability._I'd_rather see_it as a "social task": Such a_transition will_force everyone to learn new things_and will make experienced_personell_feel like beginners. Only if you_can convince the key users ("tool_providers") and a majority of_the_engineers_that such a transition makes_sense you can expect them to_take that hurdle._If only some users with influence will_not_be convinced, I would expect such_a_transition to fail. As every software_tool_Mathematica_has weak spots and oddities:_these are usually easy to overcome_and none of them does actually make Mathematica useless_or very hard_to use, but it's easy_enough_to_make it look like that would be the case. Unfortunately_it doesn't_help that you_can find such cases for the exisiting tools like Excel_just as well, you can't expect people_to make fair comparisons in such situations. So I think you'd_really need to make sure that you have_the support of users and the management._To gain that, you'll_probably_need to:

Ensure that everyone agrees that there_is_a_problem_with using Excel,_maybe listing 
everything_that can't be_done with_it or