In the design of information systems, the terms 'human-centered' and 'user-centered' came to be recognized as opposite approaches. Whereas the human-centered approach basically works at a solution with information provided by work participants, the 'user-centered' system focuses on the concept and design of the system.

There are inherent limitations in the methodology of the human-centered system. It permits people who work with the systems to shape and manage their own work which could introduce an element of social expectation as well as a more local or regional flavor to the product. On the other hand, the flexibility of the design makes for an easier use of the system, and those limitations may be viewed as 'positives' in the work environment.

User-centered design is more of the traditional and technological approach which would focus on the process rather the people using the process. However, autocratic decisions about what is required and how it will be designed and managed may not serve the best purpose either. Technology focused systems could fail to take into account the more informal nature of expertise and decision criteria. Needs and goals may vary considerably with different levels of people, different social conditions and even geographically diversified settings.

The user-centered design acknowledges the need for informal information systems, which may enable and promote communication, but is goal-directed in the design planning. As the pendulum swings toward human-centered planning with all the possibly positive results, we should not ignore the focus of the user-centered system with its efficiency and high design standards. Whereas it could be easily argued for the more human approach, it appears that the user-designed systems are still more productive and technologically efficient thus far.