Where I work we are piloting a data collection platform for machine run data and product measurement data, either from manual measurements or from automated machine. This platform runs at workstations located at each major operation in the various process steps for the stuff we make. The software at each workstation ties into a central database that I will probably get next month (right now we are running it off an express version of a database to prove that it will work before making a larger investment). This thing is very "chatty" over a network and requires local network speeds to the database to work correctly, so it cannot be housed in corporate's data center (unless we do major phone line upgrades, which won't happen). If it works like we expect, then this platform will get rolled out to all North American plants or possibly world wide to the off shore plants as well.
So we are talking about over 30 separate database installs plus associated hardware. Our choice is either Oracle or MS SQL Server. Corporate wants to push for Oracle, however the corporate director heading this project is listening to me and I am trying to decide whether to push for SQL Server or Oracle.
Here is my dilemma. I want to push for SQL Server, for multiple reasons, the major one being that Oracle wont offer us anything to justify the additional cost. However, corporate's point is that they have more Oracle expertise than SQL Server expertise. However, my db certification is in SQL Server (not that I ever used the cert, I just went and got it because I wanted to know how databases worked) and I am sensing a possible change in job title if this thing hits the big time, and corporate quality realizes someone will have to manage this thing full time, especially give the extraordinary mission creep potential this type of project has. I doubt I would get much more if any more pay, but it would be something new and interesting and I tend to like new and interesting situations.
Is my jockeying ethical?