Jeff,
The PeopleSoft Data is not in our culture a suggestion box. We have no rights or privileges to ask for or request changes. The databases are across different departments that are not remotely connected. The data is not always the same. HR data and Work orders and even vehicle information do not merge really well.
We had 2 databases merged at one time, but this year we had to split them because the responsibilities for each database has changed. Therefore we split them and now we have 4 databases where there were 2.
Jim Wagner
________________________________
________________________________
From: Jeff <jpjones23@earthlink.net>
To: MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [MS_AccessPros] Database management question
Jim,
The first thing I'd do is to put some boundaries on the field-name-changing admins and insist that name changes be made based on clear business needs and not preferences. And then, the actual changes would come to you as requests with business justifications and it would become your (IT Department) responsibility to determine the best way to satisfy the business need. No Exceptions!
Maybe I missed it but it's not clear to me whether or not all these departments need read only access to the data or need read/write access. The direction taken is affected by how they use their data.
Possible Options:
1. The next thing I'd do is to merge separate databases so that there are far fewer. Once merged, for read only needs, I'd create excel or Access based utilities to extract the specific data into a "local" department specific Access Database for each. These extracts could either be single databases where the needed forms, reports, queries, etc. are present or split databases with the extracts going to the back end database.
2. For those departments that need update authority I'd look into the possibility of having a distributed database or separate user groups using the built-in security capabilities of Access.
'Course other than the first business process suggestion, the others are dependent on many requirements I don't have so numbers 1 and 2 may be off base.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Wagner <luvmymelody@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Oct 6, 2011 9:56 AM
>To: "MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com" <MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [MS_AccessPros] Database management question
>
>Duane,
>
>I wish that was that was an option. No sql availability.
>
>
>Jim Wagner
>________________________________
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Duane Hookom <duanehookom@hotmail.com>
>To: Access Professionals Yahoo Group <ms_access_professionals@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 8:54 PM
>Subject: RE: [MS_AccessPros] Database management question
>
>
>I would suggest you use SQL Server for nearly all data storage. You have much greater security and scalability. You can build views, use multiple databases, and perform some crazy cool stuff.
>
>Duane Hookom
>MS Access MVP
>
>
>
>
>To: MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com
>From: luvmymelody@yahoo.com
>Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 22:28:09 +0000
>Subject: [MS_AccessPros] Database management question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I have a question that I did not foresee needing to be asked about 5 years ago, but now it has become a frustrating point.
>
>I work for a large University and a very small department that now supports close to 60 databases and roughly 1000 queries. Each database large and small has a unique function and cannot be made it to one. Several reasons are management just do not want some users to see some data. Another is that we support a lot of departments across different distinct areas that are not related to each other. The data just is not compatible. For instance HR Data in one area and Work Orders in another area.
>Because of the growth of the areas that we support and the databases we keep needing to build we have come to a management nightmare. The nightmare is that we are at the mercy of PeopleSoft and those yahoo's that support and manage it here. The admins like to change field names,or make incorrect data changes that affect many of our databases. Now that we are in mismanagement, we need to find a way to support the objects in the databases. If they change a field name we need to change the field name in multiple databases and multiple queries and multiple reports. It has become crazy.
>On top if it all some departments that use the same data need it hashed a specific way, which is not always the same as another group. So now we have 5 databases with the same data but the criteria is different.
>
>How do other people manage multiple databases?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim Wagner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar