| Discreteness |
FLS did not effectively retain or share information about matching decisions, which led to repetition |
| Iterative process |
FLS required linkages to run in a set order, with the clerical review of one phase completed prior to the next phase starting. This approach required substantial manual input by the Linkage Officer. Sometimes, this led to a less efficient strategy being used to determine a link, when a better option may have become apparent during a subsequent phase of the linkage process |
| Pairwise matching |
FLS could not concurrently consider more than two records for potential matching, which prevented the Linkage Officer from leveraging the breadth and depth of the WADLS without additional bespoke tools (if feasible and available) and manual intervention |
| Change control |
FLS software lacks integrated change control, which means adjustments to linkage protocols over time are not captured easily |
| Proprietary concerns |
FLS was subsumed into a new product, which introduced issues associated with cost, compatibility, support and maintenance |
