I feel your pain but not everything built in Access becomes an unwieldy, klugey monstrosity. When Access solutions are born, their useful life, evolving reasons for use and expected storage requirements aren't always well-defined. It's only after users begin to embrace something that works, and request new functionality, that these things become clearer.
When faced with a decision b/w using a RAD tool to create something outside of IT, or spending $500,000 and waiting 6 months so real devs can deliver something Finance needed yesterday, that may not be needed tomorrow, the choice is an easy one.
Your generalization isn't entirely unfair; IT is often called on to fix a mess, but some Access solutions are built by people who understand database design/normalization and can put together a easily-maintainable application that never hits storage limits or requires upgrading to a SQL Server-managed back-end.
Corporate IT never lays eyes on many Access projects that aren't crap.
When faced with a decision b/w using a RAD tool to create something outside of IT, or spending $500,000 and waiting 6 months so real devs can deliver something Finance needed yesterday, that may not be needed tomorrow, the choice is an easy one.
Your generalization isn't entirely unfair; IT is often called on to fix a mess, but some Access solutions are built by people who understand database design/normalization and can put together a easily-maintainable application that never hits storage limits or requires upgrading to a SQL Server-managed back-end.
Corporate IT never lays eyes on many Access projects that aren't crap.