ugukems.info

Search engine optimization is becoming very important for online business nowadays. It has gained so much importance that several IT firms are even providing their specialized services in this specific field. Now the million dollar question is whether you should hire someone outside of your firm for the optimization services to make the websites friendlier to the search engine or you should indulge your own firm for search engine optimization. Any SEO services provider firm can be hired for the optimization purposes of the websites. These firms often charge the clients certain bucks in order to share their expertise in the perspective field.The in-house SEO is something that your own firm pursues. A group or flocks of people, who work together and share their knowledge to best, optimize the websites. But the team of search engine optimizers only works for the in-house projects and they do not accept any outside projects. The team is specifically designed so that it can meet the internal SEO needs and can sort out internally. The internal SEO team works dedicatedly behind the company’s projects and derive the solution as per needed.What is Outsource SEO Services?If you are not sure that your in-house SEO team can actually solve your search engine requirements and can give you the maximum benefits then you should outsource SEO projects rather than harming your business or depending on your in-house SEO team. There are firms that provide search engine optimization services in exchange of some monetary amount. Such firms are specialized in the perspective field and offer their services to the handle the outsourced SEO projects. Different SEO services provider firm offers services at different rates depending on the services and the manual effort.Why to go for Outsource SEO Services rather than In-house SEO?Now here comes the main question that will clear the major difference between the outsource SEO and the in-house SEO services. It will also help you to decide whether you should opt for in-house SEO or you should better outsource the SEO projects. There are few reasons, which will definitely help you to take the decision like:• Firm Deadline:Well, if you are involving in-house SEO and you are setting a predetermined deadline then, also it might fluctuate because it is your in-house project therefore your needs might change continuously and you will definitely not compromise on it. Thereby you will delay the project and it will not meet the deadline. But while you outsource SEO projects to other firms they will start as per your initial requirements and if in case your requirements are changing and it is possible to reflect the changes into the websites then only they will change or else they will not. Thus, they will definitely meet the deadline and will deliver the projects on time.• Implementation of Variety of Resources & Ideas:While you are involving your in-house SEO the ideas that they will share will be limited. Whereas if you hire an outsource SEO services provider firm, it will merge different ideas and thoughts before implementing finally to optimize the websites. It would be again an additional advantage for you to direct the projects to the outsource SEO services provider firm.• Reduction in Cost Factor:The most common thinking is if you direct your projects outside rather than depending on the in-house SEO then, it would be more costly. But in reality it never happens while you depend on companies that manages outsource SEO services, they charge you for one time and will do the optimization along with the maintenance. You will get the services with variable resources and ideas, which will help in better optimizing the websites. While with your in-house SEO all time maintenance cost would be there and unnecessarily usage of resources would be there with lacking quality.These are the three main benefits which you can definitely receive through outsource SEO services and can improve the ranking of the websites in the search engine result page. SEO services provider firms are the biggest option for the one who wants to excel in online business with quality services. So, what are you waiting for?

The reason companies invest in software is to make work easier – right? Then why do so many users laugh at the idea?After reviewing a large project I came up with seven reasons why the software wasn’t making work easier. Looking at the list I realised that it wasn’t just limited to this one project, but were common in many organisations and in many programs.1. Processes and procedures are not written in conjunction with the softwareThe person writing the procedures does not incorporate the specific software in the flow. This then results in the software being an obstacle to the work flow.In the project being investigated, the people writing the procedures had not used the software and were not aware of the features available. In fact what happened was that someone was focusing on procedures while another person was delegated with making the software do what was required. This split in responsibility is a false concept.2. ConfigurationThe larger the software package, the more it will need to be configured or customised for the client. Time configuring the system correctly is an investment in the success of the project.As an extension of the first point, it was found that the software wasn’t actually configured to meet the requirements of the user, business or customer. It’s not that it couldn’t, but that no-one had invested the time to fully set up the system.When rolling out a large project, there is a strong emphasis on being “on time” and “on budget”. When it comes to “on quality” the focus is often on ensuring the software works – that is, it isn’t buggy. The full test of “on quality” needs to expand to include being correctly configured.The great aspect of configuration is that it can be done relatively easily. To clarify, it is easier than modifying the actual program code and releasing it. Configuration is meant to be the way to tweak software to really meet the user’s needs.Which means that as the program is rolled out, and users start to use it, the program can be adapted to meet the true requirements. It means that after being in use for some time and requirements change that the software can adapt with it.Provided someone is doing it.3. Lack of trainingThere are now many ways to pass knowledge onto the user. They include: Correctly laid out software with meaningful labels etc
Tips (pop-up information boxes in the software)
Help (F1)
Manuals
Wikis
Webinars
Training videos
Online training
One to one (or small group) training
Group trainingWith so many options available, it is amazing how poorly trained users are. Part of the reason is that there are a number of fundamental questions that need to be answered: Generically, how do you use the software?
Specifically for a given task or role, how do you use the software?
What does the user need to know for the day to day tasks?
What does the user need to know for when things go wrong, or for the infrequent tasks?
What do advanced users need to know?It is relatively easy for the developers to create a document on what the program does, but they can’t necessarily write the manual on what the user is meant to do. This is getting back to the first point about the procedures linking in with the software.So training needs to focus on processes and procedures as much as how to use the software.There also needs to be multiple layers of training, starting with the day to day training up to the advanced training of key staff.4. Functionality only, not efficiencyMost of the development on the project only focused on ensuring something could be achieved. There was little or no focus on either operational efficiency or database efficiency.There were periodic reviews of really poorly performing aspects of the system, but there had been little consideration on how efficiently a task could be achieved.Fundamental to good software is the concept of “it has to make life easier”. This starts with the specification, but needs to flow through the design stage, testing and release. The software needs to adapt to ensure that it remains easy to use.I personally recommend that developers are forced to anonymously sit at the back of a training course while new users are shown how to use the software. The developers aren’t allowed to communicate with the users in any way, but just have to watch. The users will stumble around trying to achieve something, they will press the wrong buttons, go to the wrong screens, and often will eventually give up. Or they will swear at how cumbersome it is. The developers will either leave the room with great ideas as to how to make the system faster and easier to use, or will complain about how stupid users can be. You now know which developers you keep, and which developers you want to loose.5. Project focused developmentFor the project being reviewed, development was primarily sponsored through new contracts won by the business.New features were integrated into existing features where possible, or designed so that other contracts would gain benefit from it so there was an overall improvement. The biggest issue however was that existing contracts did not have the benefits of continual improvement.The question was normally “how can we comply with this” rather than “how can we run our business better”.6. Acceptance with second bestUsers have been continually told to persevere with poor performance, as well as not to request changes. There are a number of reasons for this including: much of the software they use is totally beyond the company’s ability to fix (e.g. everyone’s favourite word processor and spread sheet).
historically if something doesn’t work the solution is to reset the computer and come back later.
consequently computers are notorious for problems that magically come and go and can’t be fixed
even if a problem can be fixed, the person who has to fix it is too busy or the problem isn’t of high enough importanceThis was a direct consequence of the attitude of the previously mentioned attitude of “how can we comply with this contract” rather than “how can we run our business better”. Users were continually told that changes weren’t possible because they weren’t a priority.The end result is that users eventually stop complaining. It sounds like a win for the business (“the number of change requests has now dropped to nearly none”) but the reality is that the user, and consequently the business, is now putting up with second best.7. Losing agilityWhat made the project so successful early on was its ability to quickly adapt the software to the users’ requirements. As time progressed the attitude became “the business has to get used to waiting six months for a change and can’t just expect it to happen”.The final result was a slow lumbering beast that was frustrating users and no longer meeting the business needs.The first six points are not a once-off check list, but a continual necessity. Businesses need to adapt to survive, which means the software needs to adapt. The ability of a company to incorporate these ideas quickly is a core part of the business being able to adapt quickly.SummarySo who is responsible for ensuring software makes life easier for the user? The answer is “everyone”. It’s a company culture issue. Unfortunately my experience has shown that it is too easy to promote a culture of frustration and compromise.