http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/1/BannonHughes.html
7. Issues in CSCW design
We have already noted that, as far as CSCW is concerned, the traditional approaches used in HCI are less than adequate. Among the more prominent weaknesses that have been identified are (Bannon, 1991):
• its focus on the individual user
• its lack of contact with the ‘real world’ situations of use,
• its tendency to confine itself to the small experiment,
• its use of novices rather than ‘real world’ users and
• its neglect of the way in which users can acquire expertise through experience
Involving the user
In system design it has long been accepted that design needs to be informed by models of the user. In traditional HCI such models tended to be of the single user and built along cognitive principles which took little or no heed of the social dimensions of system use. Within CSCW, however, such an approach is deficient for two main reasons: first, CSCW is about collaborative activities among a number of persons and, second, the social dimension can only adequately be described by the study of cooperative activities within ‘real world’ settings. Added to these is the demand from users for more flexibility and a greater ease of use of interfaces and systems.
Grønbœk et al (1993) make the point that as computer systems have spread into work environments, the gulf between the developer and users has widened and needs to be remedied by a greater involvement of the user in the design process from the earliest stage. The diagrams below set out the differences between traditional system development and that proposed by CSCW design.
Fig. 1: the workplace and the development process
In fig. 1 systems are developed in a laboratory or software house to be applied within a ‘real world’ context and work setting. Developers typically have only a partial knowledge of this setting provided by a set of requirements extracted by relatively formal methods at the start of the design and development process. This tends to produce a mismatch between the designed system and the ‘real world’ needs for support adequate to the socially situated features of user activities.
Fig. 2: bridging the gap
An alternative approach is provided in fig. 2 which relies on observational studies mentioned earlier and/or user participation throughout the design process to minimise the mismatch. How and in what ways these can be effectively developed is a major research area within CSCW for although observational studies and user participative design do have similar objectives to the extent of involving the user more, the latter has a much more explicit focus on what users want and is closely involved in issues to do with the democratisation of the workplace. Observational studies, on the other hand, do not embrace the political issues quite so formally, and would argue that although there is a strong sense in which putative users of a system are immensely knowledgeable about the work, this tends to be partial and egocentric rather than having a grasp of the social interdependencies of work activities. As noted, this remains an important research area in CSCW.
Nonetheless, it remains an important aim of CSCW that users conceived as participants within ‘real world’ settings and not as the homunculi of some ‘technically oriented’ requirements method, must become central to cooperative system design. The immediate effect of this is to broaden the conception of the user to include not only the individual but to include those who may not be direct users of the system but who can be massively affected by its operations (Ackroyd et al, 1992). However, this does not remove the kind of problems noted in above about relating the analyses of work to design.
---
The Context of CSCW [전문가 평가][투표] 
3.CSCW: A short history``4.Setting the scene - Characterising CSCW``5.The attraction of CSCW``6.Early experiences with CSCW systems``7.Issues in CSCW design
http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/1/BannonHughes.html