User-written Access databases (and other similar applications) always present a number of issues for IT. Issues of on-going support, documentation, testing, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, security, backup, licensing, disaster recovery and so on. They represent all of the challenges that we continually work to minimize.
Some in IT view Access databases as the root cause of these issues and therefore the solution is clear. Let's solve the problem by outlawing Access databases and limit user ability extract data from or to update data in the ERP systems other than through IT provided means. No more user-written systems, no more issues.
Others view these user-written systems as a symptom of a larger issue. The larger issue being that users take this route because IT doesn't give them a better alternative. They don't feel IT is responsive enough to their needs and therefore they must take matters into their own hands. Those that believe the Access database as a symptom issue don't believe we can ever eliminate them (users will always find away to meet their needs) until IT resolves the issue of responsiveness thereby providing a better alternative to users?
How do you view Access databases? Are they the root cause of the problem or are they symptoms of bigger issues?
"Help" photo by Cobber99
Got a question you'd like me to post for future discussion? Email it to me using the "Email Mike" link in the left hand column.
If this topic was of interest, you might also like the other posts in the IT Question category.
Mike,
You know my answer on this.. or maybe you don't.
First, I love Access databases - I really do. Rapid development of data analysis tools.
But I understand the question - supportability, rogue and de-centralized data, etc. The fact is that Access DB's or other user created tools may be both a problem, a symptom, or simply the way they get things done.
It depends on what is happening there.
If the user has a tool that they create that allows them to more quickly manipulate data extracted from its source - not really update that data once downloaded (we want centralized data integrity is possible), then it is no different that using Excel or creating multiple reports. (that sentence was too long).
But, of course, if the user is making changes to the data they've extracted - that invalidates it, that is a problem.
I think IT departments need to come to terms with rogue tools on a user by user basis - as difficult as it sounds. You may find people who are reducing your work and providing a lot of value to the organization through their self-created tools.
Posted by: Matthew Moran | September 08, 2008 at 07:04 AM
Mike,
A long time ago (approaching 4 decades, now!) I decided that the purpose of computers and computer programs should be to make life easier, better, and more productive for those who have to deal with them. The motto I adopted was, "You should never have to work for the computer, the computer should work for you!" As a result, I have always endeavored to not only respond to the users' needs but to anticipate their "follow-up needs" (those that they will discover once they get over the joy of much more easily doing the things they had been doing) and to "put in the hooks" so that I can more readily respond to those needs when they are realized. Also, I have never really understood why, especially in these days of desktop computers that are so powerful, IT isn't better at integrating itself into the world of the business users. Sure, every business has some sort of IT activity but not every IT activity understands that the reason it exists is to server business rather than the business existing to serve IT.
That being said, I have most commonly seen Access databases begin to proliferate when IT has become unresponsive to the Business User's needs either because of red-tape, the "bigger fish to fry" syndrome, or under staffing. The red-tape generally results in backlogs of projects which then introduce "unacceptable delays" in getting the users' needs met. The "Bigger Fish to Fry" syndrome, effectively, says to the user, "You're really not very important in the over all scheme of things, so you'll just have to deal with your problem." and that is something that I think is somewhat insulting . . . even if it might be true. (After all, even the least important fish may have a problem that impacts others who may be bigger fish. ;-) The under staffing issue may well be a "self inflicted wound" that the Business Users have imposed on themselves because they view IT as a "cost center" rather than a "profit center". If so, IT needs to work on changing their attitude.
In the end, the proliferation of Access databases, IMHO, is usually a symptom. Exactly what it is a symptom of is up for debate sometimes, though.
Posted by: Ralph Wilson | September 08, 2008 at 09:02 PM