OK, a bit of heresy here...
For small enough databases with narrow enough tables and simple enough math, reports, or forms, it almost doesn't make a difference.
For instance, if you kept a personal address book in Access, it almost wouldn't matter if that was all it did.
If the table was only say 50 records deep, it almost wouldn't matter because of speed issues.
You need to split/redefine your tables when things get very big. What is very big? Only you can really decide that.
There is a "pride of authorship" issue that can ALWAYS be a driving force to do things correctly. You would design it properly even for the shortest tables.
There is a "want to learn" factor that can be a driving force to do things correctly. You would investigate proper design even for the shortest tables.
There is a "this damned thing won't work" factor that can be an IMMEDIATE and URGENT driving force to get things done correctly. You would investigate proper design no matter what your tables contain.
But if none of those three reasons apply, then the old engineer's rule applies: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Now, to answer your question about "how difficult" ... that depends on where you are starting and where you are going. This IS the proper topic to ask your question. May I suggest that you read a bit on the subject of Database Normalization as a starting point? Look through older posts in this topic heading to see other questions about design issues and how to approach the problem.
Given the vagueness of your original statement, it is nearly impossible to get a quantitative answer on how difficult it would be to do what you want. But it is almost NEVER impossible to split your tables to improve structure, quality, or performance.