Databases: Separate companies - single or multiple databases? (1 Viewer)

dazza61

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
60
Hi guys,

I asked a question a while ago about maintaining a single or separate databases, etc and got some really good feedback; many thanks for this.

This question is an extension to the original question in that...

...We run two independant UK companies (separate company numbers), one is a recruitment agency, the other a specialist recruitment agency.
All our staff (including myself), work for both companies throughout the day...the amount of time spent on each being dependent on the needs of each business, etc....

We run two separate Access databases...and I guess you all know where I'm going with this...

Is there a legal requirement to have separate databases because they are separate companies? Or can I run a master single database? (as suggested in my original question, way back) - i.e. a single common backend which holds data from both companies, however the front end controlling what happens to the data (i.e. separate reports for each company (for tax purposes), with combined reports to see the overall financial position if needs be)

Any comments, ideas or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping some of you may have legal knowledge regarding company law with regards to RDBMS systems, data protection, etc, etc

Many thanks in advance

Darren
 

statsman

Active member
Local time
Today, 04:51
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,088
I don't see any legal reason why you could not have only one database.

The only legal problems I can see is that if both companies are registered as separate entities, they must have separate accounting reports and file separate corporate tax returns.

I would set up the reports so that the user can elect to have overall reports, reports for just companyA and reports just for companyB.
 

dcb

Normally Lost
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
529
Are both the DB's FE/BE?
If you are worried in any way, nothing stops you from creating a FE that controlls both DB's
Should there be an audit etc you still have the data as two entities and there is no way you can be accused of any wrong doing on an accounts level...
My opinion is this would be the best way to give your users a better FE experiance yet CYA :D
 

dazza61

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
60
Hi guys,

Many thanks for all your responses.

@ statsman: Both companies are registered separately...
@ dcb: Yes, both companies each have a FE/BE database (making 4 DB's in all (to clarify))...
@ George: I have already asked the question - we have 4 directors (between the 2 companies) - some like the single database approach, some (especially finance) want separate resources...

What I want is statsman's approach - one entity that is. However, I feel dcb's approach is what they would settle for, because e.g. if I leave, or say one company shuts down, then they have 2 separate data sources.

I've already designed a single master database based on the idea of a multi-branched / multi-companied (aka a group of companies) - and tried to sell to them the fact that the database can control Company A, Company B or a combination of both (they currently get cross company sales reports using union queries, etc). Also, if either of the companies opened new branches in other areas, they would use my master single entity. I don't think they can grasp this concept - I'm sure they would want separate databases for each branch - sheesh...

I just need to know if I'm breaking any British Law by combining data from 2 (or more even) separately registered companies...?? Because if I'm not, then I could probably sell all the other benefits...

Darren
 

HiTechCoach

Well-known member
Local time
Today, 03:51
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
4,357
Hi guys,
@ George: I have already asked the question - we have 4 directors (between the 2 companies) - some like the single database approach, some (especially finance) want separate resources...

Darren

Darren,

I don't think that was what George was suggesting. He was not asking about the directors or managements opinion, but that of the company's auditors (usually an outside firm).

I develop and sell accouting systems. I work with the companies accounting firm that they have hired to do the taxes and audits. I always get their opinion on stuff like this.
 

dazza61

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
60
Hi Boyd,

Sorry, I overlooked George's point (sorry George) - although we have an Accountant (who is the FD) who does all the accounts, we do have an external firm that oversees certain stuff, so maybe this is an avenue I could explore. They visit so infrequently, hence why I missed George's point.

However, it will be tricky because our Accountant (who I get on very well with) used to work for the external company and it would seem unfair to "go over his head" or "round corners" so to speak - last thing I want to do is alienate people which is why I thought I would come here ;-)

Darren
 

Atomic Shrimp

Humanoid lifeform
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Messages
1,954
I'm not aware of any requirement to keep completely separate systems, and indeed I have encountered several situations where the business of multiple companies was managed on a single software system.

As long as the data, reporting and accounting can be handled as distinct entities for each company, there shouldn't be any functional difference between the two models.

I would personally prefer the approach of a single system capable of handling multiple companies - because it makes upgrades and versioning simpler and by design, it includes the possibility to expand by adding more companies/clients in future.
But if you do operate two companies on the same system, it's important not to have casual/unaccounted transfers or alterations of value, stock, etc - there are contexts in which these things can happen within the admin of a single company, but for separate ones, everything must be accounted for.

The integrity and separability of the data is the important thing.
 
Last edited:

dazza61

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
60
Atomic Shrimp is as cool a name as your words to explain my dilemma - many thanks for your input...I'll have to try and remember some of those words at our Monday morning meetings ;-)

Our business model has changed steadily over the years and it isn't going to slow down...so a flexible, future-proof system would be good...

Think I'll also take George's lead - get some more info, etc if not from OUR auditors - separate ones that will have an unbiased opinion...

Thanks to you all for taking the time to reply to me...it really is appreciated!

Darren
 

David Eagar

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 19:51
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
924
My two cents worth - You never know the future! if the two companies merge in the future (it happened to me 3 times) it will be MUCH easier if the data is in 1 database (just update Company number & hey, presto - data merged)

Doing it from seperate databases will be a LOT more time & effort
 

Atomic Shrimp

Humanoid lifeform
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Messages
1,954
Think I'll also take George's lead - get some more info, etc if not from OUR auditors - separate ones that will have an unbiased opinion...
Good plan - make sure they explicitly state whether something is statutory, or merely their preference - sometimes, auditors and accountants can be a bit locked into the notion of paper ledger books - and this can affect their recommendations.

I can't imagine it will be a problem to manage two separate companies within the same system (providing everything we discussed about separability is observed) - because the management of multiple client accounts within a single system is really commonplace - most companies that operate a managed warehousing and distribution service for multiple client companies will be operating that way.
 
Local time
Today, 03:51
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
3,856
Also, I wasn't suggesting going around your accounting department to talk to the auditors. It should be a process with the accounting department actively involved, at your request.
 

gemma-the-husky

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
15,613
there would be no requirement to have separate databases for each company - otherwsie why do accounting software companies sell multi-user - multi-company products

all that is required is for the company to maintain proper accounting records.

if they are on the same premises, a mulit-company system may make sense, or you may prefer 2 separate ones, because then its easier to keep some info private.
 

wiklendt

i recommend chocolate
Local time
Today, 19:51
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
1,746
my 2 cents...

also, separate reports are not out of reach in a merged database. after all, the database draws on the primary key ID of each company, so to filter on that ID and spit out data which is just for one company is easy - if they're super pedantic you can even even export to excel just one company's data and send that to them so that they don't have to do any thinking. or send them a PDF's of reports - they'll never know it's any different.

i agree with everyone else who has replied - put the two companies into the one database. after all, what if you acquire another company? what are you going to do, build ANOTHER database?

in your monday morning meeting, ask your bosses: does a hospital build a separate database for each patient they treat??

so why should you for each company you manage? if you have the ability, i would also show them you single merged DB and show them with their own eyes how sensible and easy it is.
 

dazza61

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
60
Sorry this is a late reply - been away for a while...

I want to thank each and every one of you for all your ideas and taking the time to reply to me. To get this many replies is a revelation :) I would thank you individually, but if lots more people reply it will turn into a scenario of Mrs Brown went to market and she bought............:)

It's going to be hard work - the seed has been re-sown but it will be an uphill struggle, simply because of funding. Most of the complications lie in my job role - my main job role is sales (85% of my work time) so there is precious little time to keep on top of things properly - (I developed both databases in my spare time initially at home over 6 months rolling out changes, week on week). This, tied to their muddied concept of good database design I feel is what stands mostly in my way. I feel they also need to trust me more too. My main argument to trusting me is the fact we've had no database corruption since I rolled the databases out 3 years ago...(1½M turnover p.a. / 12 users/plus lots that like to use Control/Alt/Delete (no matter how much I ask them to use the big red QUIT command)).....sighs****

However, with all your collective thoughts and input - maybe - just maybe there may be some light at the end of the tunnel ***smiles***

Many, many thanks once again.

Darren
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom