Personally I think too many teams over-reach on scouting and expect that a slightly more efficient method of scouting might provide exponentially increased returns, when in reality any well-run scouting system that gets you accurate, useful data is perfect in my book.
I know that a number of incredible teams use well-run, efficient electronic scouting systems. 1678 comes to mind as the best, but a bunch of these systems are very, very good.
However a well-run paper and excel scouting system gets the job done nearly as well, and is harder to mess up (in my opinion).
I would encourage most teams looking to advance their scouting potential first to look at a) the data you're collecting, and b) how you're aggregating it
Are you collecting useful data? Is the data you're collecting accurate?
Useful data is generally quantitative. # of goals scored, # of goals missed, etc.
Non-useful data is often qualitative. How well do they shoot? How good are they at defense? Some of this data can be obtained other ways- by smart people who have watched a lot of matches who are knowledgeable, or by working closely with their drive team during matches, but match scouting sheets don't need these metrics.
How are you aggregating the data? Can you use the data you've collected to produce picklists or to produce match strategy? Excel can be a really useful tool for this, but so can some sort of paper-and-pen system if someone wants to put in a lot of time making the data more accessible.
Once you've optimized those two factors (what you're collecting and how you use it), then you can move on to how efficiently and easily you're collecting data.
Getting a high tech scouting system, but collecting poor data or being unable to use the data is like having the best shooter in the world, but no ability to acquire game pieces consistently. It doesn't matter if your accuracy is 100% if you're never able to shoot.
EDIT: To actually answer your question instead of ranting about scouting, Team 180's Poor Man's Scouting System is absolutely phenomenal.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3098