Time and materials unless the client is willing to prepare a fixed
specification or requirements, which they generally don't have the resources
to do.
Jeff
"TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote in message news:1069208825.75904@teuthos...[color=blue]
> Just as a matter of interest, when you accept to work on a database that[/color]
you[color=blue]
> can see is badly designed, do you ever give fixed quotes, or do you always
> go time & materials?
>
> TC
>
>
> "Michael" <westmj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aff51963.0311180135.420b7f83@posting.google.c om...[color=green]
> > Hi there!
> >
> > I currently make my crust from companies who get people who have read
> > a teach yourself access book,( and think they know how to design a
> > database),to build databases. They build increadibly flat databases
> > that are not normalised and away they go. Then about 6 months later
> > it all falls in a heap and then I get a call.
> >
> > What the poor employees end up with is increadibly convoluted systems
> > that are a nightmare to use and have many functions and purposes all
> > built into the same screens. The company I work for now has two major
> > tables each with well over 150 fields in each. Its a financial system
> > that does payments, estimates, customer tracking etc on the same
> > screen. Like I said , a nightmare.
> >
> > I know exactly how you feel. When I produce an audit of the current
> > system I always recommend redesigning the tables and tell them the
> > system would be faster more flexible and easy to understand blah blah
> > blah, but they never go for it. They just want to paper over the
> > cracks until the next time they realise its going to go wrong.
> >
> > But I am all too happy to deal with these situations because it keeps
> > me busy. Every now and again I get to design a system from scratch
> > which is such a breath of fresh air. The reality is that most
> > companies use access because it is cheap and immediate. They don't
> > have to wait 2 years for the software development lifecycle to come
> > around and they can pay an administator to build it.
> >
> > My clients are usually really appreciative of simple and obvious
> > improvements as well and is always nice to get some cudos.
> >
> > If you've got to link to tables like that then you are kind of forced
> > to adapt to their system, but I would definately work with updates and
> > dumped data, and make tables from the backend to fit into the
> > structure (sounds like a lot of work).
> >
> > BTW
> > I love it when people come here to get something off thier chest. I do
> > it all the time and the responses I get always help me think the
> > situation through. Long live usenet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
bluedolphin1414@hotmail.com (BlueDolphin) wrote in message[/color]
> news:<fb300aa1.0311171351.913c7d8@posting.google.c om>...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I'm not sure if this is a question or more of a rant... but I'm
> > > looking for some input on this from other developers out there. How
> > > often has the following happened to you and how have you dealt with
> > > it.
> > >
> > > I am consulting on a new project. Originally I was going to get data
> > > dumped to me from an external system, and import the needed data once
> > > a week into a normalized design that I had created. I knew what my
> > > fields were going to be, what I needed to do, etc... I was pleased
> > > with the design which currently consists of 22 tables (It still
> > > excludes a course section that I haven't designed yet... So it would
> > > grow slightly from here). The first phase of the import had been
> > > written and I was waiting for my first dump of real data.
> > >
> > > This is where I get to the point. The external entity decided that it
> > > would be more efficient to give me access to their back-end instead of
> > > programming and maintaining a weekly dump... Besides I would have the
> > > live data and we wouldn't need to worry about data lags. Link the
> > > tables in from SQL! EXCELLENT... I thought. Saves me a huge import
> > > from week to week, I have real time data!... How nice of them!!! I
> > > got all excited and went to the meeting to get access to the back end.
> > > I am back at my PC now and have just linked in the 5 objects that
> > > they totld me I needed to get the data I required. The first table I
> > > am looking at has 215 columns in it, the second has 72 columns in it,
> > > the third has 140... you get my drift. Almost NONE of the columns are
> > > numeric... almost ALL of them are text... and I am expected to build a
> > > beautifully performing system from these unnormalized base tables. I
> > > feel like stepping backwords again, and grabbing the data I need,
> > > sucking them into my design and forgetting about using their back-end.
> > > I am assured by the people I spoke with that I can get all data that
> > > I need from the design and was assured that every query need that I
> > > have can be aquired from their tables.
> > >
> > > On my last long term project, I had one section of one table that was
> > > not noramlized and got trampled into the ground by some very arrogant
> > > newbies fresh out of school. Now I'm on the opposite end and am
> > > looking at monstrously unnormalized tables and expected to work with
> > > them as if life is fine! By the way... they archive the information
> > > in these tables from year to year in their own stand alone tables...
> > > (I'm sure that's for performance reasons.) However, the department I
> > > am working for has a need to aggregate the data backwards in time.
> > > (number crunches from last year or two years ago etc.) This means
> > > hardcoding table names for specific years. I feel like I'm looking at
> > > a design nightmare, but if I don't use the design, I risk stepping on
> > > some toes.
> > >
> > > How many of you out there have been faced with this... and what would
> > > you do!? Would you move forward against their design, or consider
> > > building my own system once again. They have a finite budget to work
> > > with. I know I can deliver a good system given a normalized design,
> > > which will do everything they want and have good performance. But it
> > > will take longer to build it from scratch. By giving me the base
> > > tables, they are looking at it as a huge cut in development time, but
> > > I'm not sure I can deliver them the system that they need... No I
> > > probably can deliver it, but the performance of the system will be in
> > > the toilet considering all of the searching and querying against all
> > > of the text fields that will be required.
> > >
> > > THOUGHTS?! INPUT!? POLITICALLY CORRECT RESPONSES TO A BAD SITUATION!!
> > >
> > > I guess if I lost the job from stepping on some toes by trying to
> > > build them a normalized system wouldn't be so bad... maybe... I need
> > > the work since X-mas is around the corner, but working with a system
> > > that is so far off can't be good for my career anyway. What to do,
> > > what to do...[/color][/color]
>
>[/color]
