Slashdot Mirror
A Database for the Office?
travellerjohn asks: "I work in a small company (200 people in 7 offices), where the staff uses Microsoft Access to create various databases. Most of the time they lose interest before the databases become complex or important enough to warrant the IT department getting involved. However, from time to time, someone turns up at our door looking for help with their pet project, often starting with statements like 'it should work over the intranet' or questions like 'why can't it store documents and pictures?' or 'how do I control user access?' When we sit them down and explain how much it will cost to rewrite their database in PHP/VB/JSP, or whatever we sound unhelpful and expensive. What database tool does Slashdot recommend I provide our staff? It has got to be easy to use, web enabled, capable of storing documents and pictures and offer user level security. We have tried Sharepoint with some success but that is pretty limited, too, and I have looked at Oracle Application Express. Open source would be good, but I would pay for the right product. Any suggestions?"
A relational db is one thing, a document collaboration tool is another. If it is a MS Office environment, get someone who knows Sharepoint to come out and show you and one of your power users what it can do. You can even buy/build modular web parts if your document needs are out of the ordinary.
You'll need MSSQL on the backend, so that solves your "bigger than Access" problem right there. These tools dominate their markets for a reason.
FileMaker seems to be the easiest for non-techies to grasp, and supports image storage, publishing to web servers, and other goodies they want. Also hooks to SQL if you need more horsepower on the backend.
I've used FileMaker quite successfully for many years. It is simple enough for most folk, but extensible. It can store pictures and other binary data. The web interface can be customized. User level access control is built-in. It runs under Windows and Mac and in Wine under Linux. Databases can be migrated to a FileMaker Server, if they go beyond the standalone limits (10 simultaneous users, typically). There's also a compiler to create standalone applications from databases, without needing a license per user.
All in all, FileMaker is a great tool for this sort of thing.
-- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc.
Why not use something like TWiki? It can store those things plus it has decent enough access control. We've moved almost our entire business unit (around 600 users) web content and migrated a lot of processes to one centralized TWiki installation running on a Solaris box and couldn't be happier.
For 200 users, with user-level security, you just need to find a tech willing to actually spend the time to make Access work. 2007 has plenty of additional gizmos, incluing a new "attachment" data type to, well, store those documetns you can't really store in Access.
(You can store Images in Access. You use the "image" file type.)
Now, if you just want to upgrade their database, the SINGLE CHEAPEST thing you can do is setup SQL Server 2005 Express. Access can upgrade itself to use the server (Use the "SQL Database Engine" if you're version-shy), and you gain all of those things that you don't have now.
What can Access do easily and well? How about slapping together a presentation in Powerpoint and e-mailing it directly to users? Dumping database content directly into PivotTables for executive analysis...and providing a form to allow them to build their own custom data views. Using Excel objects to chart directly in the database...and provide the ability to get that data out for more detailed analysis. All with no servers, no full-time team of empire-builders who insist everything has to be done in an overly complex way to justify their own jobs.
The snobby dismissal of Access is generally the result of seeing bad implementations of it. There are places where Access is a horrible choice, and there are "developers" who will mangle anything they touch, including Access. But I will tell you this: nothing can touch Access for speed of deployment for its scope. Paying through the nose for a PHP/Java/MySQL/whatever solution that the users have NO chance of being able to tweak by themselves is only a good deal for the developers, who can hold the users hostage when they need changes. I would say that for most small-to-mid-sized organizations(up to around 250 users per database), Access databases can fulfill many of their ::internal:: needs. The Internet? That's a different question entirely...run away screaming from Access for that.