Hi!

>The rational behind this proposed move is purely that the client, which is a cash and resource starved UK national health authority, doesn't want to support servers at different geographical locations. Their concept is that an SQL base system at HQ linked to other locations without servers will be less of a drain on their resources. My system is the only system in use throughout the authority which uses local servers.....but then again it is the only system within the authority that meets the local users's needs!
>

Nice point. Unfortunately top management rarely look to this fact... ;(

>My view is that any move away from local servers to a centralised SQL type system will result in a much slower data transmission time, especially as I understand the data links in place are very slow indeed. It would also result in hugely increased support time, given the proven unreliability of the data links as well.
>

This could cause only increase in development time and complexity of the application. Current technologies and concepts allow to build applications that way that work with acceptable speed and reliability despite unreliable connection. However, implementing them accurately require a LOT of effort, learning, designing and thinking. Support effort for databases decrease, though, - just because you will have only one server instead of multiple, so no data synchrinization is needed. Little of benefits, a LOT of work...

>I have been asked, however, to look into this option and the feedback from yourself and from the others who responded has been incredibly useful. I shall be using it in support of my argument against going to a centralised data source, which will be a relief to me and my (small) organisation as it would put major demands on us which we could do without right now!
>

You can say them - "too much work for a little benefit". Indeed, great effort require great money, that could be the main argument against implementing this change ;)