The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A retrospective look at PD projects
Open accessAbstract
While modern methods for information system development generally accept that users should be involved in some way [15], the form of the involvement differs considerably.Mostly, users are viewed as relatively passive sources of information, and the involvement is regarded as "functional," in the sense that it should yield better system requirements and increased acceptance by users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(2006) · Cited by 2,256
(2005) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) · Cited by 1,064
User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges
Kujala, S. (2003) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290301782 · Cited by 943
The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012
Halskov, K., & Hansen, N. B. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.003 · Cited by 365
Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectations about Generative AI
Inie, N., Falk, J., & Tanimoto, S. (2023) · Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544549.3585657 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 29-37
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2012009776
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 49.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A retrospective look at PD projects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/153571.163264
- The paper
- Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P. (1993). A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/153571.163264
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
