International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Knowledge maps: A systematic literature review and directions for

future research
Ali Balaid a,∗ , Mohd Zaidi Abd Rozan a , Syed Norris Hikmi a , Jamshed Memon b
a
Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, 81300 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
b
Department of Computer Science, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences (FAST-NU), Karachi, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Context: Nowadays the concept of knowledge mapping has attracted increased attention from scientists in
Received 20 November 2014 a variety of academic disciplines and professional practice areas. Among the most important attributes of
Received in revised form 30 July 2015 a knowledge map is its ability to increase communication and share common practices across an entire
Accepted 11 February 2016
organisation. However, despite being a promising area for research, the knowledge maps community
Available online 26 February 2016
lacks a widespread understanding of the current state of the art.
Objective: The objective of this article is to explore the world of knowledge mapping by reviewing and
Keywords:
analysing the current state of research and providing an overview of knowledge mapping’s concepts,
Knowledge maps
Knowledge management
benefits, techniques, classifications and methodologies, which are precisely reviewed, and their features
Systematic literature review are highlighted. In addition, we offer directions for future research.
Method: Based on the systematic literature review method this study collects, synthesises, and analyses
numerous articles on a variety of topics closely related to a knowledge map published from January 2000
to December 2013 on six electronic databases by following a pre-defined review protocol. The articles
have been retrieved through a combination of automatic and manual search, hence extensive quantitative
and qualitative results of the research are provided.
Results: From the review study, we identified 132 articles addressing knowledge maps that have been
reviewed in order to extract relevant information on a set of research questions. We found a generally
increasing level of activity during this 5-year period. We noted that while existing research covers a
large number of studies on some disciplines, such as systems and tools development, it contains very few
studies on other disciplines, such as knowledge maps adoption. To aid this situation, we offer directions
for future research.
Conclusions: The results demonstrated that a knowledge map is an imperative strategy for increasing
organisations’ effectiveness. In addition, there is a need for more knowledge maps research.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
2.1. Perspectives of a knowledge map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
2.2. Relationship between a knowledge map and KM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3. Review method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.1. Review protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.3. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
3.4. Study selection process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
3.5. Quality assessment (QA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ali [email protected] (A. Balaid), [email protected] (M.Z. Abd Rozan), [email protected] (S.N. Hikmi), [email protected] (J. Memon).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.005
0268-4012/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
452 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

3.6. Data extraction and synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

4. SLR results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.1. Publication sources overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.2. Citation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.3. Temporal view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.4. Research methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.5. Research methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .456
4.6. Research contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
5. Research questions results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
5.1. What are the topics of knowledge maps that have been addressed? (RQ1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
5.2. What are the potential benefits of knowledge maps? (RQ2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
5.3. What are the different tools and techniques of knowledge maps? (RQ3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
5.4. What are the different classifications of knowledge maps? (RQ4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
5.5. What are the different methodologies currently known to build knowledge maps? (RQ5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
5.6. What are the key challenges and barriers of knowledge maps? (RQ6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
5.7. What are the limitations and gaps in current research? (RQ7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
6. Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Appendix A. Primary studies references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Appendix B. Quality assessment criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Appendix C. Study citation count for all the primary studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

1. Introduction that have been pursued by a knowledge map research community;

(ii) reveal prospective research gaps that require further research.
Knowledge maps have received increasing attention as an More specifically the following research questions were stated:
important subfield of knowledge management, where they play RQ1. What are the topics of knowledge maps that have been
an imperative role. It helps to describe what, how and where to addressed?
find useful knowledge within an organisation (Eppler & Simon, RQ2. What are the potential benefits of knowledge maps?
2008). Several objectives can be acquired when utilising knowl- RQ3. What are the different tools and techniques of knowledge
edge maps. Some organisations view it as an activity that can help maps?
with their strategic planning, while others may use it as a basis RQ4. What are the different classifications of knowledge maps?
for knowledge transfer. It can help to move towards “empow- RQ5. What are the different methodologies currently known to
erment of the organisation‘ which “involves providing access to build knowledge maps?
existing information and expertise’ (Hellström & Husted, 2004). RQ6. What are the key challenges and barriers of knowledge
In other cases knowledge maps have been used to represent the maps?
views of participants and their mutual relations to other views, as RQ7. What are the limitations and gaps in the current research?
well as illustrate the dependencies of learning paths and serve as To achieve and explain effective results in a clearer and more
the basis for the implementation of knowledge management pro- understandable manner, this systematic review was performed by
grams (Dang, Zhang, Chen, & Larson, 2011; Einsfeld, Ebert, Kerren, using the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham (2007). A systematic
& Deller, 2009; Ivanov & Cyr, 2006; Kim, Suh, & Hwang, 2003). review is developed, as the terms denote, in a methodical and for-
In all cases, it deals with the problem of how best to visualise mal way. This means that the research procedures of a systematic
knowledge assets in order to perform specific activities, particularly review follow a strict sequence and very well defined methodolog-
when organisations that value knowledge would like to recognise ical steps, according to an aprioristically developed protocol. The
how, when and where to access knowledge. This is where a knowl- task here involves distinct activities: develop the research proto-
edge map presents a snapshot of where an organisation is at any col, state the criteria of inclusion and exclusion studies and assess
given time comparative to its competitors (Wexler, 2001; Yang, the articles’ quality based on well-defined criteria, data extraction,
2007). synthesis and analysis.
While research on knowledge maps is still at an early stage, Subsequently, this review collects, synthesises and analyses 132
over the past few years the number of studies has continuously articles as primary studies on a variety of topics closely related to
been increasing. There are several streams of research central to knowledge maps published from January 2000 to December 2013
knowledge maps such as network analysis, information visuali- in top journals and conference proceedings. The review shows that
sation and text mining. Nevertheless, there has been no effort to there is a growing interest in knowledge maps and that specialised
review these studies systematically in order to make them use- tools and methodologies have recently been established, which
ful for researchers and practitioners. Therefore, there is a need to help in creating and managing knowledge maps. On the other hand,
synthesise the evidence regarding the accuracy and usefulness of we noted that while existing research covers a large number of
existing studies. studies on some disciplines, such as systems and tools develop-
Motivated by lack of work, and the use of a systematic review ment, it contains very few studies on other disciplines such as
technique in a knowledge map area, the main objective of this study knowledge maps adoption. To aid this situation, we offer directions
is to introduce the idea of using this technique in order to explore for future research.
the world of knowledge mapping and provide a holistic overview Overall, through a comparative analysis of those studies, we
of the current state of the art to all researchers and practitioners. aim to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the
The secondary objectives are to: (i) methodically collect, analyse knowledge map domain. We believe that this review will be sig-
and synthesise all existing studies within this domain in a fair and nificant for researchers, who want to recognise topic areas where
rigorous manner in order to bring the state of research themes research is lacking or have been researched, as well as for prac-
to the practitioners and bring them up to date on the activities titioners, who want to know the state of research and stay up to
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 453

date on knowledge maps. The remainder of this work is structured Consequently, from a different point of view, Earl (2001) cat-
as follows. Section 2 provides the background of knowledge maps. egorised the strategies of KM into several schools; these are
Section 3 outlines the method used to perform the review, including broadly classified as “economic” “technocratic” and “behavioural”.
protocol development, sources selection for the study, information The cartographic school, which is placed under the technocratic
extraction and the syntheses. Section 4 reports the SLR results, Sec- school, matches the essential concept of a knowledge map since
tion 5 presents research questions results, and finally, Section 6 it focuses particularly on maps. Similarly, the engineering and
presents a discussion and conclusions. systems schools under technocracy also match the spirits of knowl-
edge maps since they are based on information technologies that
2. Background can support all knowledge workers throughout the organisation in
their daily routines. Overall, a knowledge map is considered as a
In this section, we give an overview of a knowledge map’s per- key solution for successful KM in an organisation since it provides
spectives, describe the main concepts related to it and summarise knowledge users with a road map of where the knowledge flows,
the core definitions. We then present how knowledge maps relate who has it and where it is located.
to the discipline of knowledge management (KM).
3. Review method
2.1. Perspectives of a knowledge map
This study has been undertaken as a systematic review, which is
Many people have misconceptions with respect to what the a repeatable process that documents all available studies relevant
term knowledge maps means and what they can deliver. These mis- to a topic area or a particular research question (Kitchenham, 2007).
understandings are mainly due to the lack of commonly defined There are several motivating factors for carrying out a systematic
concepts. In reality, knowledge maps have been in existence for review.
many years. We have been practicing it in everyday life but just not The common ones are: (1) to summarise existing evidence about
doing it in a systematic way or documenting it. It entails keeping a a technology or a treatment, e.g., to summarise the evidence of
record of knowledge we need such as who holds it, where we can the advantages and disadvantages of a specific map technique; (2)
get it from, whose expertise it is, and so on. Let us take a case in to discover current research gaps with the aim of proposing areas
point. I want to locate something in my office, so I can straightfor- for further research activities; (3) to propose a framework for new
wardly find it since I have almost all the knowledge about it. It is research topics and (4) to support the creation of novel hypotheses
a sort of map set in my mind about my office. In an organisation, (Kitchenham, 2007). Derived from our aims, the first two reasons
this is not the case because, in order to set out such a map about fit the point of this review. In this study, we follow Kitchenham and
an organisation, we cannot execute that simply in our mind. This Charters guidelines (Kitchenham, 2007). The task involves distinct
is where a knowledge map comes into play. With its aid, every bit activities, which are to: (i) formulate a review protocol; (ii) identify
of knowledge that exists within a subject can be deciphered and inclusion and exclusion criteria; (iii) illuminate the search strategy
this makes it easy for us to create some predictions and modifica- process; (iv) study the selection process; (v) bring about quality
tions. In the literature there are numerous definitions related to a consideration; (vi) use data extraction and synthesis. Details about
knowledge map. It has been defined in various ways from different each stage are reported in the following subsections.
viewpoints. However, there have been no universal definitions of a
knowledge map so far. Many scholars have formed information on 3.1. Review protocol
knowledge maps using their own judgment. Table 1 shows some
current views. This systematic search started with a developed comprehensive
review protocol based on the guiding principles and procedures of
the systematic literature review. This protocol identifies the review
2.2. Relationship between a knowledge map and KM
background, search strategy, research questions, data extraction,
criteria for study selection and data synthesis. The research ques-
In a review on KM, from the preceding research, it can be pointed
tions and the background of this review are described above,
out that KM is a large interdisciplinary field. KM can be recapitu-
although the coming subsections provide details about other ele-
lated in the phrase ‘know, show, grow!’ Know is tacit “knowledge
ments. The review protocol not only helps to increase the rigor of
in an individual’s head”; otherwise knowledge that is documented
the review and reduce researcher bias; it is also a substantial fac-
and written down means to show (explicit) and grow is considered
tor in a systematic review that distinguishes SLR from a traditional
as a collaboration toward innovation that stimulates new knowl-
literature review (Kitchenham, 2007).
edge (FM, 2012). Among KM’s five segments, as described by Duffy
(2000), knowledge maps place the segment of user interface and
it has been confirmed that they offer the potential to be a primary 3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
component of KM.
From a superior level of thoughts, Tiwana treated a knowledge The purpose of setting up the criteria of inclusion and exclusion
map as a tool for viewing the strategic position within organisa- is to make sure that we only use researches that are relevant to our
tions and industries (Tiwana, 1999). Likewise, Chung, Chen and study. We consider research articles (from journals, conferences
Nunamaker (2003), agreed with Tiwana in that a knowledge map and workshops) in the English language, published from January
should be arranged from the upper level of organisational strate- 2000 to December 2013 in digital databases. We eliminate articles
gies, vision and missions. Further, the researchers (Hansen & Kautz, that do not clearly relate to a knowledge map domain. We also
2004; Speel, Shadbolt, Vries, Dam, & O’Hara, 1999) expressed that eliminate editorials, prefaces, poster sessions, panels and tutorial
knowledge maps are a key prerequisite for effective KM. Further- summaries. Further, when different versions of an article exist that
more, from the perspective of KM’s role, the researchers (Hellström may appear as a book chapter, conference or journal article then in
& Husted, 2004; Tiwana, 1999; White, 2002) agreed that a knowl- that case only the complete version of the article is included and
edge map can be used to effectively foster, capture, generate, the others are excluded. Table 2 shows a summary of these criteria.
transfer, codify, store and utilise knowledge in organisations as well Note that a study must not satisfy any criteria of the exclusion and
as in projects. must satisfy all criteria of the inclusion.
454 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 1
Knowledge maps—a selection of definitions.

No. Definition References

1 “A knowledge map serves as continuously evolving organisational memory, capturing and Wexler (2001)
integrating strategic explicit knowledge within an organisation and between the organisation and
its environment”
2 “A knowledge map is a navigation aid for discovering the sources of explicit and tacit knowledge by Chan & Liebowitz (2006)
illustrating how knowledge flows through the organisation”
3 “A knowledge map portrays ‘the sources, flows, constraints and sinks of knowledge’ within the organisation” Liebowitz (2005)
4 “A knowledge map is about making the knowledge that is available within an organisation Driessen, Huijsen, and Grootveld (2007)
transparent and providing insight into its qualities”
5 “A knowledge map is about discovering knowledge, tracing its flow, mapping its existence and its Lee and Fink (2013)
changes, and identifying where it is most needed”

Table 2
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

We included articles that are: We excluded articles that:

Full-text Had their full text not available

Published between January 2000 and December 2013 Were not related to our research questions
Were written in English Were outside our search time span
Were within a knowledge map domain Were of duplicated studies

3.3. Search strategy pursuing references of references) (Jalali, 2012). Lastly, the studies
obtained from the process of snowballing were added to Mendeley,
The search strategy consists of two main stages (automatic and thus producing the final set of primary studies.
manual), as illustrated in Fig. 1. To identify primary studies an
automatic search was used to extend the review and, thereby,
3.4. Study selection process
additional studies were included to gain a broad perspective. As
recommended by Kitchenham (2007) a manual search was used
The process of study selection was done using a toll-
on the primary studies references. During the first research stage,
gate approach, as in Giuffrida and Dittrich (2013) and Nidhra,
the following databases were queried: IEEE Explore, ISI Web of
Yanamadala, Afzal, and Torkar (2013). Hence, after searching in
Knowledge, Scopus—Elsevier, Springer Link and Engineering Vil-
all sources’ search engines presented above by using the defended
lage (Compendex). These databases were chosen as they were
keywords we set the initial search and identified 492 studies from
considered as the most relevant and provide the highest impact
the automatic search stage. Out of these 492 studies, 203 were
journals and conference proceedings that cover the field of a knowl-
duplicates and were removed using Mendeley. The remaining 289
edge map.
studies were checked against the criteria of inclusion and exclu-
The usefulness of searching in electronic databases rather than
sion (exclusion upon title, abstracts and keywords) and in this step,
the limited set of journals and conference proceedings was empir-
non-useful results (i.e. results that were not journal, workshop, or
ically motivated by Dieste and Padua (2007). Derived from the
conference papers) were eliminated. In this step, 99 studies were
research question and the structure of this review, general key-
excluded based on titles, abstracts, keywords review, and 190 stud-
words were used in the search with the aim of identifying as many
ies remained. As suggested by Kitchenham (2007) it is important to
relevant articles as possible with the main set of keywords, which
emphasise that, at this stage, we only excluded studies that were
was “knowledge maps”. Nonetheless, after a first round search,
clearly unrelated to the subject. In case of doubt, the study was
which intended to find available studies in the domain, other key-
taken to the next stage. In the third step, the selection criteria were
words were added and all possible permutations of knowledge
applied considering the full text (exclusion upon full text), thus
maps concepts were tried in the search, such as knowledge rep-
resulting in a set of 82 studies being further excluded; after reading
resentation, mapping knowledge and K-map. Once the initial data
the full text we were left with 108 studies.
was obtained from the selected data sources using the search string,
Once the non-useful studies had been eliminated, we began the
the papers were analysed with the intention of considering their
second stage (manual stage). As mentioned above, the second stage
relevance to questions of research and were based upon the criteria
was performed to ensure confidence in the comprehensiveness of
of inclusion and exclusion (as explained in Section 3.2).
the search results. Thus, all of the 108 remaining studies references
Thus, for storing all citations, Mendeley, a bibliography man-
were screened and 45 additional studies were identified. Subse-
agement tool, was used to keep the results of searches from each
quently, these 45 studies were added to Mendeley and we then
database as well to take out duplicates. Initially, the criteria of
produced the pre-final set of primary studies. In total, we were left
exclusion were applied only to the titles, and then both criteria were
with 153 studies. Finally, after the second round full text revising
applied to the abstracts and the conclusions. When the quality of
of these studies and application of the quality assessment criteria,
the abstracts was recognised as poor the Section 1 of the articles
21 studies were removed. Here, 132 studies were identified as pri-
were also analysed and, if required, the entire article was then scru-
mary studies and formed the basis for the next steps in our review,
tinised and analysed. After that, the results were imported into a
as listed in Appendix A.
spreadsheet that was also used for the phase of data extraction.
The distribution of the primary studies among different pub-
Besides the automatic search in digital libraries, we did a man-
lication sources, before and after the selection process, is shown
ual search as an example of additional reference scanning in order
in Table 3. It can be seen that the majority of the studies before
to guarantee that we had selected a representative set of studies
the selection process were returned from Scopus (159), followed
as well as find out whether we had missed anything. Thus, all of
by Compendex (114), ISI Web of Knowledge (105), Springer Link
the primary studies references were reviewed and the criteria of
(62) and IEEE Xplore (52). Google Scholar was not used in the first
exclusion were applied—this process is known as snowballing (i.e.
stage. However, the majority of the studies after the selection pro-
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 455

Fig. 1. Search strategy and study selection process (adapted from (Giuffrida and Dittrich, 2013)).

Table 3
Studies distribution among different publication sources, before and after the selec-
tion process.

Source Count before Count after

IEEE Xplore 52 28
Eng. Village (compendex) 114 7
ISI Web of knowledge 105 22
Scopus—Elsevier 159 42
Springer link 62 16
Google scholar (used only in stage 2) – 17
Total 492 132

Fig. 2. QA: distribution of research studies.

cess were returned from Scopus (42), followed by IEEE Xplore (28),
ISI Web of Knowledge (22), Google Scholar (17), Springer (16) and
finally Compendex (7).

3.5. Quality assessment (QA)

given a score of 2 if the study fulfilled a criterion. In case the study
The principle of QA is to make a decision regarding the overall partially fulfilled a criterion, it was given a score of 1. Otherwise,
quality of the selected studies (Kitchenham, 2007). Thus, in order to it was given a score of 0 when it did not fulfil the criterion. The
find out the strength of inferences and guide the analysis of findings study’s quality was considered as high if it scored greater than or
in the included studies, the subsequent quality criteria were used equal to 6, whereas if it scored 5 it was considered medium, and
for evaluating the selected studies: low if it scored below 5. The outcomes of applying the criteria of
QA1. Are the topics addressed in the paper related to our review? quality assessment are given in Appendix B.
QA2. Is the context of the research described in the paper? In fact, such a quality assessment is highly subjective. We
QA3. Is the methodology of research clearly explained in the are aware since our review included qualitative and quantita-
paper? tive empirical studies, in the former case, and evaluated whether
QA4. Is the data collection method described in the paper? the study had given sufficient data or was subjective overall. Yet,
QA5. Is the data analysis accurate and evidently explained in the we performed the quality assessment as objectively as possible;
paper? even with the potential for subjectivity we believe that the quality
Thus, by using the five QA criteria presented above we assessed assessment provided us with a global impression of the included
the 153 selected studies in order to ascertain our confidence in studies in this review. During this process, it was found that 21
the credibility of a particular identified study. This five QA schema studies did not fulfil the criterion, so we excluded them from the
is inspired by (Nidhra et al., 2013). The schema was designed to final list. Thus, based on QA criteria of (Nidhra et al., 2013) the pri-
contain three values (high, medium or low). Therefore, the quality mary studies of our SLR included 132 articles; the majority of the
of the study was assessed depending upon its score on each of the remaining studies got a relatively high score in this QA as shown in
QA criteria mentioned above as being high, medium or low. It was Fig. 2.
456 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 4
Data extraction for each study.

Extracted data Description

Study ID Unique identity for the paper

Bibliographic references Authors, title, publication source and publication year
Type of paper Book chapter, journal, conference or workshop article
Data collection method E.g. survey, case study, experiment, observation etc.
Data analysis method Quantitative, qualitative or mixed method
Context of application Description of the study domain, e.g. industrial, academic settings

3.6. Data extraction and synthesis

The process of the extraction and synthesis of data was per-

formed by reading each of the 132 studies carefully and pulling
out related data, which were managed by Mendeley and MS Excel
spreadsheets. The main aim of this phase was to derive forms
for data extraction to precisely record the information that was
obtained from the primary studies (Kitchenham, 2007). The follow-
ing columns were considered in this review: study ID, to identify
each study, study title, the authors, its date, publishing location
(conference proceedings, journals, etc.), and the study context (to
discover in which area knowledge maps can be used). These items Fig. 3. Primary studies distribution per publication source.
were selected in alignment with the research questions and objec-
tives. Essentially, the data extraction for the 132 studies was driven
selected studies; it just provides a rough evidence of citation rates.
by a form shown in Table 4.
As shown in Fig. 4 around 80 selected studies were cited by other
Consequently, by investigating the full text of each primary
sources. Among these studies, 17 have more than 50 citations by
study the data required was extracted and synthesised with the
other sources, as shown in Table 5 below. Fourteen studies have
intention to include discursive analysis for a range of issues about
were been cited between 20–50 times from other sources, while
a knowledge map, such as potential benefits, tools and techniques,
18 studies were cited between 10–20 times and finally 40 studies
classifications, methodologies and in which domains of knowledge
were cited below 10 times from other sources. On the other hand,
is knowledge map has been applied and conducted etc. Once the
43 studies did not have any citations since most of them were pub-
data from the primary studies was extracted and recorded, the
lished in the last two years (2012 and 2013), so it is not expected
analysis stage was performed by using quantitative and qualitative
that in such a short period they can reach a higher citation num-
methods. The synthesis results will be described in the following
ber. Overall, we expect that the studies’ citations rates will grow
sections.
more since the majority of the studies were published in the last
five years.
4. SLR results

This section provides some necessary statistics results about the 4.3. Temporal view
included studies before the data analysis discussion for our SLR.
Here, we present included studies with respect to their sources, The distribution of the primary studies throughout the years is
temporal view, citation status, type of publication, and the applied presented in Fig. 5. By looking at the year of publication as shown
research methodologies and methods. Finally, we present research in Fig. 5 we notice a gradual increase in publication numbers in
contexts’ results in which research has been performed. These the domain of a knowledge map since 2000. Thus, it very clearly
results are detailed in the subsequent sections. demonstrates a growing interest in this area, mainly from 2006
onwards. Fig. 5 shows that the publication in the years 2012–2013
4.1. Publication sources overview have increased by roughly 30 studies while the years from 2000
to 2003 saw little research published by 14 studies only. This is
The majority of primary studies were published in top journals conceivably not surprising since the concept of a knowledge map
and leading conferences that belong to the most cited publica- began only in the last two decades.
tion sources. Thus, the top position of the publication source and
their impact factor provides confidence in the potential impact of 4.4. Research methodologies
this systematic review and their overall quality assessment. The
distribution of the primary studies derived from their publication The distributions of the included studies with respect to the
channels is shown in Fig. 3. As we can see the majority of the pri- research methodologies are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that both
mary studies were published in 79 journal articles (60%), followed qualitative and quantitative methods have been regularly used. As
by 46 conference articles (35%) whereas a few (7) articles where well in a few studies, both qualitative and quantitative method-
published in symposiums and workshops only (5%). ologies were mixed together as a means of complementing each
other. Fig. 6 shows that 51 studies report qualitative work, 34 stud-
4.2. Citation status ies report quantitative, 26 studies conceptual studies and only 4
studies report mixed method.
Taken as a whole, the included studies’ citation rates are quite
good, which is an indicator of the studies impact and high qual- 4.5. Research methods
ity. Fig. 4 shows an overview of the citation rates of the included
studies. The citation statistics were obtained from Google Scholar. To classify the included studies, with reference to their research
The data presented here is not meant for comparison between the methods, we applied the classification provided by (Glass, Vessey,
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 457

Fig. 4. Citation count.

Table 5
Most cited studies.

S ID Study Title Citation

S61 Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis 386

S56 Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing 306
S117 The who, what and why of knowledge mapping 162
S112 Building the knowledge map: an industrial case study 148
S32 Creating knowledge maps by exploiting dependent relationships 137
S36 Dynamic knowledge map: reusing experts’ tacit knowledge in the AEC industry 136
S67 Newsmap: a knowledge map for online news 121
S116 Linking social network analysis with the analytic hierarchy process for knowledge mapping in organizations 116
S44 Knowledge map creation and maintenance for virtual communities of practice 110
S60 Knowledge maps: an essential technique for conceptualization 105
S95 A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary 105
tools for knowledge construction and sharing
S84 The synergy of social network analysis and knowledge mapping: a case study 97
S102 Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? 88
S25 Business intelligence explorer: a knowledge map framework for discovering business intelligence on the Web 80
S45 Knowledge map for tourist destinations—needs and implications 68
S120 Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic environments 65
S124 Knowledge auditing and mapping: a pragmatic approach 65

Fig. 5. Primary studies distribution over the years.

Table 6
Research methods description.

Research method Description

Case study Studies that have combined several data techniques such as workshops, interviews and documents analysis to study
one or a few contexts (cases) are located in this category.
Experiment Studies using either field or laboratory experiments are included in this category.
Design science Studies that developed systems or tools fall into this category.
Survey Studies that fall into this category have used interviews or questionnaires to survey practices, opinions and so
on from a (large) population.
Mixed method Studies that have combined two or more of the above-mentioned categories fall into this sort.
Delphi method Studies that report the opinions of the expertise on the field of study, including participation in meetings and other
workplace activities, are located in this category.
Review Studies that analysis the existing studies, typically with the aim of exploring the domain and understanding the
concepts, fall into this category
Not mentioned Studies that do not mention any methods either implicitly or explicitly are sorted here.

& Ramesh, 2002) as shown in Table 6. Out of the 132 studies, 42 finally, one study reported a Delphi method as shown in Fig. 7. On
reported case studies, 28 reported experiments, 14 studies reported the other hand, 23 studies did not have their methods mentioned.
design science, 10 studies reported surveys and 11 studies reported We can see that the research methods in the selected studies are
a review method. Three studies reported a mixed method while, dominated by case studies, followed by experiments and design
458 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

ics. Thus, based on our data analysis for similarities and differences
of the research topics and studies contents, seven relatively dis-
tinct categories emerged. The identified categories are: benefits
and utilisations of knowledge maps; knowledge maps frameworks
and models; methodologies of building knowledge maps; knowl-
edge maps classification; knowledge maps adoption; and general
reviews of knowledge maps. Table 7 provides more details about
this classification.
Fig. 9 shows an overall view of this classification and we can
se that the first category is ‘knowledge maps benefits and utilisa-
tions’, which was also the largest category, with 36 studies (27%).
Nearly all of the studies in this category highlighted the utilisations
of knowledge maps in different disciplines and show details of how
organisations have utilised knowledge maps to achieve some mea-
Fig. 6. Research methodologies distribution. surable benefits. The second category is ‘knowledge maps systems
and tools development’, whereby 28 studies (21%) were classified
science. Given the broad nature of knowledge maps, we believe it in this category. The focus of these studies was mainly on practices
is right to have a large number of case studies and experiments. and issues in knowledge maps systems and tools development. The
third category was 24 studies (18%) that related to ‘methodologies
4.6. Research contexts of building knowledge maps’. In this category, the studies focus on
the various steps involved in building knowledge maps. The fourth
Fig. 8 represents the distribution of the included studies regard- category is ‘knowledge maps frameworks and models’ and 19 stud-
ing the contexts where the research was performed. The result ies (15%) were sorted in this category. The focus of these studies
indicates that knowledge maps have expanded into a broad spec- generally concerned the development of frameworks and models
trum of disciplines, including industry, academia, health etc. It for knowledge maps implementation. The fifth category, contain-
can be seen that the majority of studies came from the industry ing 12 studies (9%), was related to ‘knowledge maps classification’.
area, with 50 studies, as well as 28 studies being performed in the In this category, the studies exhibit the different characteristics
academia environment, 13 studies were performed in the inter- of knowledge maps classification. The sixth category containing 4
net environment, 8 studies were performed exclusively in the R&D studies (3%) is related to ‘knowledge maps adoption’. In this cat-
centres, 5 studies in health and finally 4 studies were performed in egory, the studied aspects are: perceptions of knowledge maps,
non-profit firms. However, in 24 studies the context was unclear. incentives to adopt knowledge maps, and factors that may affect the
adoption of knowledge maps. The remaining 9 studies (7%) could
all be classified in the seventh category, which we call ‘knowledge
5. Research questions results
maps reviews’. These studies report on the different characteristics
of knowledge maps in general. Concisely, the distributions of pri-
After selecting and extracting the primary studies, it was pos-
mary studies according to their categories have been analysed in
sible to answer the questions of this study derived from the 132
Fig. 9, which shows the distribution graphically.
studies analysed. Accordingly, each study was mapped to the most
related question and the similar studies were grouped. The fol-
lowing sub-sections provide the results for each of the research 5.2. What are the potential benefits of knowledge maps? (RQ2)
questions defined in Section 1.
Several benefits can be acquired when utilising knowledge maps
5.1. What are the topics of knowledge maps that have been in an organisational setting. Wexler (2001), grouped the benefits of
addressed? (RQ1) a knowledge map into four categories of returns: knowledge, eco-
nomic, structural and organisational/cultural. Similarly, Yasin and
With respect to the studies’ topics, as described above, dur- Egbu (2011), placed the benefits of a knowledge map in five themes
ing the phase of data synthesis we examined the included studies (i.e. cost saving, process improvements, knowledge improvement,
based on their similarities in terms of contents and research top- value improvement and user satisfaction theme). Likewise, Eppler

Fig. 7. Research methods distribution.

 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 459

Fig. 8. Primary studies research contexts distribution.

Table 7
Knowledge maps topics classification.

Study category Description

Knowledge maps benefits and utilisations Including studies showing details of how organisations have utilised knowledge maps to achieve some
measurable benefit
Knowledge maps systems and tools development Included studies concerning the development issues of knowledge maps systems and tools.
Knowledge maps frameworks and models Included studies concerning the development of frameworks and models for knowledge maps as a
whole
Methodologies of building knowledge maps Including studies concerning to improve overall steps of building knowledge maps.
Knowledge maps classification Including studies concerning understanding the types of knowledge maps classification
Knowledge maps adoption Including studies investigating perceptions, factors for adopting knowledge maps by an organisation
General reviews of knowledge maps Including studies concerning general reviews of knowledge maps implementation.

Fig. 9. Distribution of primary studies according to their categories.

(2001), articulated that the clearest benefit and the principal pur- Notably, there are many benefits of implementing a knowledge
pose of a knowledge map is to show people in an organisation map in organisations. Table 8 presents a summary of the main
where to go and who to ask when they need expertise. Besides that, benefits along with how many studies mentioned each benefit
a knowledge map can increase transparency and reduce complex- in the selected studies. As revealed, “To connect experts” is most
ity within organisations contexts as well as prevent overlapping prevalent as a benefit (mentioned by 32 studies from 132 selected
and repetitive activities (Wexler, 2001; Yasin & Egbu, 2011). studies) followed by “Accessing knowledge in time” (mentioned
According to Rao, Mansingh, and Osei-Bryson (2012), a knowl- by 30 studies). Subsequently, the “Identifying knowledge assets
edge map can result in some highly tangible benefits. It can help “and “Identifying knowledge flow” benefits were mentioned by
management to undertake a series of initiatives to address key 23, 22 studies respectively. Afterward, 14 studies cited the benefit
organisational issues. It can help them in identifying knowledge ‘Identifying knowledge gaps’ and 12 studies cited “Team building‘.
gaps. It can help them to establish clear links between exist- Finally, “Identifying untapped knowledge’ was mentioned by only
ing knowledge assets. It also provides them with a tool that can four studies.
enhance the decision-making process. In summary, the literature suggests a broad range of knowledge
maps benefits; however, the findings provide a clear account of the
460 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 8
Knowledge maps benefits.

Benefits Freq. References

To connect experts 32 (Backhaus, Sattari, Hees, & Henning, 2006; Van Den & Popescu, 2005; Burkhard, Meier,
Smis, Allemang, & Honisch, 2005; Castles, Lohani, Castles, Lohani, & Kachroo, 2008;
Chan & Liebowitz, 2006; Dang, Zhang, Hu, Brown, & Chen, 2011; Egbu, 2008; Eppler &
Simon, 2008; Eppler, 2001; Gordon, 2000; Gordon, 2001; Görgen & The, 2013;
Handzic, 2004; Hansen & Kautz, 2004; Huang, Lin, & Chan, 2012; Huang, Jiang, & Liu,
2013; Lee, Lee, Ke, & Liu, 2008; Lee & Tserng, 2006; Liu & Li, 2011; Liu, Shi, & Wu, 2009;
Moradi & Eghbali, 2012; Jafari, Akhavan, Bourouni, & Amiri, 2009; Nozicka & Republic,
2011; Pyo, 2005; Rao et al., 2012; Tao et al., 2006; Tserng, Yin, & Lee, 2010; Woo,
Clayton, Johnson, Flores, & Ellis, 2004; Yoon, Lee, & Lee, 2010; Yun, Shin, Kim, & Lee,
2011; Zhu and Wang, 2009)

Accessing knowledge in time 30 (Balaid, 2012; Van Den & Popescu, 2005; Dang, Zhang, Hu et al., 2011; Donnell,
Dansereau, & Hall, 2002; Driessen et al., 2007; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011; Ebener et al.,
2006; Eppler & Simon, 2008; Handzic, 2004; Huang et al., 2012; Karimi & Saeedikia,
2009; Lai, Wang, & Chou, 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Liebowitz, 2005; Lin & Hsueh, 2006;
Jafari et al., 2009; Okada, 2008; Ong, Chen, Sung, & Zhu, 2005; Pei & Wang, 2009; Pyo,
2005; Rao et al., 2012; Republic, 2011; Wang et al., 2012; Watthananon & Mingkhwan,
2012; Wexler, 2001; Woo et al., 2004; Yang, Liu, Wang, & Shen, 2013; Yang, 2007;
Yang, Song, Lu, & Zhang, 2007; Yun et al., 2011)

Identifying knowledge assets 23 (Balaid, 2012; Burnett, Illingworth, & Webster, 2004; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011;
Ebener et al., 2006; Egbu, 2008; Egbu et al., 2006; Eppler & Simon, 2008; Eppler, 2001;
Handzic, 2004; Hellström & Husted, 2004; Krb, 2013; Lee et al., 2008; Lee, Shek, &
Cheung, 2007; Liang, Jiang, Su, & Wang, 2007; Longe, Ogude, Science, & Ontario, 2011;
Jafariet al., 2009; Nelson, 2009; Pei & Wang, 2009; Régine, 2009; Tao et al., 2006;
Watthananon & Mingkhwan, 2012; Wexler, 2001; Yang et al., 2007)

Identifying knowledge flow 22 (Akhavan & Pezeshkan, 2013; Balaid, 2012; Burnett et al., 2004; Chan & Liebowitz,
2006; Chen & Lin, 2012; Egbu, 2008; Ferreira, 2009; Hansen & Kautz, 2004; Hellström
& Husted, 2004; Jalalimanesh & Homayounvala, 2011; Jetter, 2006; Karimi &
Saeedikia, 2009; Liebowitz, 2005; Longe et al., 2011; Mitchell & Seaman, 2011; Moradi
& Eghbali, 2012; Nelson, 2009; Zhang, Hun, Du & Deng, 2009; Subrt & Brozova, 2001;
Tserng et al., 2010; Wexler, 2001; Yoo, Suh, & Kim, 2007)

Identifying existing knowledge resources 19 (Balaid, 2012; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011; Ebener et al., 2006; Fu & Dang, 2010;
Handzic, 2004; Hellström & Husted, 2004; Huang et al., 2012; Jetter, 2006; Lee et al.,
2007; Liang et al., 2007; Liu, Liu, Chao, & Chen, 2007; Liu, 2013; Liu & Li, 2011; Moradi
& Eghbali, 2012; Pei & Wang, 2009; Zhang et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2013; Yun et al.,
2011; Zheng, Qian, & Liu, 2010)

Organisational restructure 16 (Dang, Zhang, Chen et al., 2011; Driessen et al., 2007; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011;
Ebener et al., 2006; Eppler & Simon, 2008; Handzic, 2004; Karimi & Saeedikia, 2009;
Liebowitz, 2005; Okada, 2008; Pei & Wang, 2009; Rao et al., 2012; Wexler, 2001; Woo
et al., 2004; Yang, 2007; Yang et al., 2007; Yun et al., 2011)

Identifying knowledge gaps 14 (Abdul Aziz & Abdullah, Hamidah Ibrahim, 2012; Akhavan & Pezeshkan, 2013; Burnett
et al., 2004; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011; Ebener et al., 2006; Egbu, 2008; Hellström &
Husted, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Longe et al., 2011; Jafari et al., 2009; Nelson, 2009; Pei
& Wang, 2009; Tao et al., 2006; Wexler, 2001)

Team building 12 (Van Den & Popescu, 2005; Dudezert & Leidner, 2011; Ebener et al., 2006; Eppler &
Simon, 2008; Jin-song, Da-peng, & Xue-dong, 2009; Kealy, 2001; Liu & Li, 2011; Liu, Shi
et al., 2009; Nelson, 2009; Pei & Wang, 2009; Wexler, 2001; Yun et al., 2011)

Identifying untapped knowledge 4 (Burnett et al., 2004; Chen & Lin, 2012; Haller & Abecker, 2010; Yoon et al., 2010)

key benefits, as reported in the literature, although they may not be tool and techniques were taken from a big project report, which
complete or mutually exclusive due to the approach applied. Thus, was carried out as a joint collaboration between four highly rated
to overcome the limitations future research is encouraged. universities and some industrial partners in the UK (Egbu, Quintas,
& Demaid, 2006). A short description and the application of these
seventeen tools/techniques maps are presented in Table 9.
5.3. What are the different tools and techniques of knowledge
maps? (RQ3)
5.4. What are the different classifications of knowledge maps?
We performed an intensive review through our primary studies (RQ4)
with the aim to discover all of the available tools and techniques,
and how these have been applied in a knowledge map domain. With respect to knowledge map classifications, our review and
It is learnt that knowledge maps techniques and tools are inter- synthesis reveals a variety of categories of knowledge maps pro-
changeable, and the process of exploring and exploiting both the posed and used by academia and industry. Logan and Caldwell
techniques and tools are the prime concerns in a knowledge map (2000), classified knowledge maps into three types: conceptual,
research community. The tools/techniques of a knowledge map competency and process, as cited by (Tao, Wu, & Li, 2006). A
purport to stimulate creativity, while allowing one to see the big conceptual knowledge map articulates the relationships between
picture, share thoughts and improve understanding. knowledge sources within the organisations while a competency
As a result, in our review, 17 tools/techniques of knowledge map is used to show the relationships between people and knowl-
maps were identified from different contexts. The majority of these edge inside the organisations. A process knowledge map, on the
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 461

Table 9
Knowledge maps tools and techniques.

Techniques/tools Description Application References

Concept map The structure of this technique is Can be applied to express knowledge (Balaid, 2012; Brinkmann, 2005;
“node, link” structure where nodes of a particular person about certain Castles et al., 2008; Chen & Lin, 2012;
represent concepts and likes illustrate topic in a specific domain, to clarify Crampes et al., 2006; Davies, 2010;
the concepts relationships. It is the misconceptions and in some cases for Egbu, 2008; Eppler & Simon, 2008;
best technique for visualizing the brainstorming and generating new Eppler, 2006; Handzic, 2004; Jetter,
relationships among diverse concepts. ideas. 2006; Kealy, 2001; Kim et al., 2003;
Lachner & Pirnay-dummer, 2010; Lee &
Segev, 2012; Lin & Hsueh, 2006; Nesbit
& Adesope, 2006; Ong et al., 2005;
Subrt & Brozova, 2001; Tserng et al.,
2010; Wang, 2011; Zhao et al., 2013)

Mind map/idea map This technique/tool is an image Can be applied as a technique for (Akhavan & Pezeshkan, 2013;
centered drawing that used for note-taking, reflect or capture the Brinkmann, 2005; Chen & Lin, 2012;
showing the connections among process in brain, problem solving and Davies, 2010; Egbu, 2008; Eppler &
portions of information. training etc. Simon, 2008; Eppler, 2006; Haller &
Abecker, 2010; Jetter, 2006; Jones
et al., 2012; Lachner & Pirnay-dummer,
2010; Okada, Tomadaki, Shum, & Scott,
2007; Ong et al., 2005; Republic, 2011;
Tserng et al., 2010; Wickramasinghe,
Karunathilake, Widanapathirana,
Kuruppu, & Liyanage, 2011)

Concept circle diagram Concept circle diagram This tool applied to group ideas into (Egbu, 2008; Lachner &
techniques/tools, are labelled circles, categories, showing the existing Pirnay-dummer, 2010)
which possibly inclusive, exclusive, relationship between themes,
and/or overlapping to present concepts departments as well organizations.
relationships.

Semantic map This technique/tool is more similar to It is applied for machine translations (Balaid, 2012; Donnell et al., 2002;
concept map and mind map that and AI (artificial intelligence). Egbu, 2008; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006;
mentioned above Ong et al., 2005; Scavarda, 2004)

Cognitive map This maps used for mapping the Applied in referring to models of (Balaid, 2012; Egbu, 2008; Eppler &
person’s thoughts about specific mental that people used for perceiving, Simon, 2008; Eppler, 2001; Hellström
subject or situation. As well it used for contextualizing, simplifying, and make & Husted, 2004; Huang et al., 2012;
enhancing learning and recall sense of complex systems. Jetter, 2006; Lin & Hsueh, 2006;
information. Scavarda, 2004; Shou, Fan, Liu, & Lai,
2013; Wexler, 2001; Yang, 2007;
Zhuge & Luo, 2004)

Process map This technique represents blocks of Applied to identify tasks sequences (Burnett et al., 2004; Chan & Liebowitz,
tasks or activities in sequenced and steps to achieve a particular goal. 2006; Egbu, 2008; Eppler & Simon,
logical way to achieve particular goal. 2008; Handzic, 2004; Jetter, 2006;
Jin-song et al., 2009; Kealy, 2001; Kim
et al., 2003; Liu, 2013; Scavarda, 2004;
Shou et al., 2013; Tao et al., 2006;
Wexler, 2001)

Conceptual map It is a graphical means used to arrange Utilized as a communication language (Chryssolouris, Mavrikios, &
concepts and conceptual relations in between computer systems and Xeromerites, 2008; Egbu, 2008; Eppler
understandable way. peoples & Simon, 2008; Hansen & Kautz, 2004;
Subrt & Brozova, 2001; Yun et al., 2011)

Knowledge flow map This techniques/tool is a high-level Applied to map the flow of knowledge (Akhavan & Pezeshkan, 2013; Egbu,
knowledge-model in obvious graphical and measure the relationship between 2008; Jetter, 2006; Karimi & Saeedikia,
form. teams, groups, departments and firms 2009)

Causal map This tool used link graphs and directed Used to explore group’s or individual’s (Akhavan & Pezeshkan, 2013; Balaid,
node to show a set of causal beliefs so as to establish cause & effect 2012; Egbu, 2008; Hellström & Husted,
relationships within the system. relationships. 2004; Jetter, 2006; Scavarda, 2004; Tao
et al., 2006; Wexler, 2001)

Social mess map Used to summarize the understanding Applied to summarize team or group (Egbu, 2008)
of a particular group about a given understanding
problem.

Ontology Illustrating concepts and the existing Used as a tool to find all information (Fu & Dang, 2010; Handzic, 2004;
relationships for a community of available in a given topic. Huang et al., 2012; Jin-song et al., 2009;
agents. The main types are Nelson, 2009; Nozicka & Republic,
task-oriented, domain-oriented, and 2011; Rao et al., 2012; Régine, 2009;
generic. Tserng et al., 2010; Wang, 2011; Xiong,
Wang, Guo, & Wu, 2008)

Petri net This technique is abstract formal Applied in search for simple, natural, (Balaid, 2012; Egbu, 2008; Gómez,
model of knowledge flow, composed of powerful methods for analyzing and Moreno, Pazos, & Sierra-Alonso, 2000;
transitions, directed arcs, and places. showing information flow in systems Kim et al., 2003)

Cluster Vee diagram This map form of V-shaped. Used as a Helping students in science field to (Davies, 2010; Egbu, 2008; Eppler,
road map to show the route of make the essential elements 2006)
knowledge from the past to future. unambiguous to build a scientific
knowledge
462 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 9 (Continued)

Techniques/tools Description Application References

Thesauri This map is a set of concepts Often applied in retrieval system. (Egbu, 2008; Scavarda, 2004; Velardi,
characterized by synonymous, Cucchiarelli, & Petit, 2007)
horizontal, hierarchical, and other
relations.

Visual thinking network This is a knowledge’s representation Used to organize, revise and represent (Abdul Aziz et al., 2012; Egbu, 2008;
strategy that encourages the users to user’s knowledge meaning-making by Okada, 2008; Okada et al., 2007)
combine multiple ways of thinking that linking and grouping pictorial
put in the picture concept formation. visualizations and symbolic into a
coherent whole.

Topic map This technique helps users to find the Used to manage large quantities of (Balaid, 2012; Crampes et al., 2006;
direct path to a specific information unorganized information. Dang, Zhang, Chen et al., 2011; Egbu,
within the concept (is more or less a 2008; Hsu, n.d.; Lee & Segev, 2012; Lee
book indexes electronic version). et al., 2008; Lee & Tserng, 2006; Liu
et al., 2007; Republic, 2011; Wang, Liu,
& Zheng, 2011; Yang, 2007)

Perceptual map This technique often used to take the Usually used by marketers to display (Egbu, 2008; Eppler & Simon, 2008;
complicated results from research customers or potential customers Scavarda, 2004)
surveys and showing them on obvious perceptions.
and informative map.

other hand, is applied to describe organisational tasks, procedures intended purpose, content, application level, creation method, or
and schedules. by their graphic form.
Likewise, Gilbert and Steggen Raub (2000), divided a knowl- In conclusion, the classifications of knowledge maps and dis-
edge map into three classes’ source, assets and topography maps cussions might provide a significant distinction amongst different
depending on different emphases, as cited by (Tao et al., 2006). schools of thought and context areas. On the other hand, the
Knowledge assets maps are used to index, organise and categorise classification might also limit the broad potential of knowledge
as well as record and present the location of important knowl- mapping uses into a few areas, as stated by (Eppler & Simon, 2008;
edge assets in order to foster easier access by the staff. Knowledge Wexler, 2001). Thus, they recommended that knowledge maps
source maps are commonly used to represent the experts within classification should be equipped with more flexible and adaptable
the organisation and from an external environment or its groups in knowledge maps that can be upgraded and modified according to
relation to a particular task. A knowledge topography map, on the the needs and changes of industrial markets. As such, summaries
other hand, can be used for defining knowledge, including infor- of the above classifications are shown in Table 10 below.
mation such as how much, what and whom.
In the same way, Eppler (2001), indicated there are five types of
knowledge maps: assets, sources, applications, development and 5.5. What are the different methodologies currently known to
structure. Knowledge assets and source maps are identical to the build knowledge maps? (RQ5)
above descriptions of (Gilbert & Steggen Raub, 2000). A knowledge
application map is used to point to the location of specific knowl- Prior research in a knowledge map area, as discussed by Kim
edge and also shows which type of knowledge has to be applied in et al. (2003) and Wexler (2001), has shown the importance of prop-
a specific business situation or at a certain process stage. A knowl- erly identifying the correct methodology for building a knowledge
edge development map is used to illustrate the required stages to map. This section aims to provide a synthesised understanding of
develop a certain competence. A knowledge structure map sketches ‘what’ are the best-known methodologies for building a knowl-
the overall structural design of a knowledge domain and how its edge map as reported in the literature. A search for methodologies
parts relate to one another. in the studies that focus on knowledge maps (the primary set of
Further, Anne Sigismund Huff (2002) mentioned a different set 132 studies) resulted in the identification of seven different types
of a knowledge map categories with more abstract anthologies on of methodology for developing knowledge maps from seven dif-
the theme of mapping strategic thought. As cited by (Eppler, 2001), ferent authors, as summarised in the upcoming subsection. Each
the study concentrates on cognitive maps and refers to the fol- methodology was not necessarily referred to as a knowledge map
lowing types of maps: schematic maps of cognitive structures, text methodology but was considered to operate in a similar way in the
and language analysis maps, network maps, classification maps and context of this report.
conclusive maps. The first methodology from (Bargent, 2002) has eleven steps.
Furthermore, Vestal (2005), referred to three categories of The author employs the strategy of software development lifecy-
knowledge maps: enterprise knowledge, process explicit knowl- cle stages by using the Lotus Discovery Server (LDS) software, then
edge and cross-functional knowledge. Enterprise maps are identifying the requirement and finally testing the knowledge map.
composed of expertise overviews and strategic overviews of knowl- One of the advantages of this method is the strength of the valida-
edge maps. Process explicit knowledge maps are composed of tion stage via using usability tests to evaluate the effectiveness of
learning needs or competency naps, document-explicit knowl- the knowledge map and its affinities and taxonomy as well as to
edge maps, and job role-based knowledge maps. Cross-functional ensure that all document placement and categorisation has been
knowledge maps are composed of functional or technical knowl- completed before going into production. The disadvantage is that
edge maps as well as expertise in tacit knowledge maps. the process requires the use of LDS, a specific type of software
In addition, Eppler and Simon (2008) proposed a pragmatic tax- which makes it difficult for employees with little or no experience
onomy of classifying knowledge maps based on the classification in software application to contribute.
principles. The general idea is to classify knowledge maps by their The second is the six stages methodology from (Kim et al., 2003).
This method employs the use of ontology in the development pro-
cess, which is a good concept for formally representing knowledge
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 463

Table 10
Knowledge maps classification.

References No. Types

(Logan & Caldwell, 2000) 3 䊏 Conceptual knowledge maps

䊏 Competency knowledge maps
䊏 Process knowledge maps

(Gilbert and Steggen Raub, 2000) 3 䊏 Source knowledge maps

䊏 Assets knowledge maps
䊏 Topography knowledge maps

(Eppler, 2001) 5 䊏 Assets knowledge maps

䊏 Source knowledge maps
䊏 Application knowledge maps
䊏 Development knowledge maps
䊏 Structure knowledge maps

(Anne Sigismund Huff, 2002) 5 䊏 Schematic maps of cognitive structures

䊏 Text and language analysis maps
䊏 Network maps
䊏 Classification maps
䊏 Conclusive maps

(Vestal, 2005) 3 䊏 Enterprise knowledge maps

䊏 Process explicit knowledge maps
䊏 Cross-functional knowledge maps

based on a conceptualisation in relation to the objects, concepts, point; determining the related type and visual displayed dimen-
and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of inter- sion and drawing a knowledge map from different aspects. This
est and the relationships that hold among them. This method was methodology can solve the difficulty of constructing a full set of
tested in the manufacturing industry. knowledge maps and satisfying the requirement of the work. It can
The third method is the four phases methodology developed make users focus on the knowledge itself, which is useful to the
by Lecocq (2006). The steps involve planning, collecting, mapping current activities in terms of improving work efficiency.
and validating. This method also employs the use of ontology in Overall, this section puts forward the methodologies for build-
the process and is hence relatively consistent. The method has four ing a knowledge map and focuses on seven detailed methodologies
phases that are comprised of eleven steps and therefore has much as the main focus of building knowledge maps for an enterprise.
detail compared to the two previous methods discussed above. Furthermore, all current methodologies are restricted within enter-
The fourth methodology is the three phases methodology prises and organisations themselves and do not have the same
developed by Mansingh, Osei-Bryson, and Hirata (2009). The degree of maturity, while there is no standard methodology yet. As
methodology involves creation of ontology, identification of the such, summaries of the above methodologies are shown in Table 11
processes involved and bringing out their instances. All of the avail- below.
able types of knowing are then extracted and presented as the final
knowledge map. The method was tested in a healthcare organisa- 5.6. What are the key challenges and barriers of knowledge
tion and was found to be suitable despite the process of validation maps? (RQ6)
not being adequately detailed.
The fifth methodology was proposed by (Pei & Wang, 2009). The From the reviewed primary studies, it is evident that knowl-
methodology involves seven steps: the set up of a project team, edge maps implementation is in its infancy and has the potential to
analysis of the knowledge resources, defining the business knowl- address challenges. According to Renukappa and Egbu (2004) and
edge domain, determining the structure and relationship, selecting Dang, Zhang, Chen et al. (2011) the key challenges that might face
and evaluating the development tools, confirming knowledge clas- organisations are the mapping of dynamic and tacit knowledge, the
sification and finally updating the knowledge map. The method was mapping of cross boundary knowledge, organisational culture and
tested in a matrix organisation. representation of knowledge.
The sixth methodology is the three-level methodology devel- Generally, the handling of the dynamic character of the knowl-
oped by Liu, Li, and Lv (2009). The methodology develops the edge is a particularly difficult task, given that some knowledge may
knowledge map for enterprise as a multilevel system (i.e. individual be replaced with superior knowledge, while other knowledge loses
level knowledge tagging, domain level topic selection and inter- value over time, and some knowledge may simply be forgotten.
domain level topic association). The methodology was formulated This calls for a multifunctional approach and dynamic knowledge
by incorporating these elements in order to construct an enterprise mapping (Renukappa & Egbu, 2004). Besides that, a considerable
knowledge map from a systematic perspective and then apply it to and time-consuming problem for knowledge map makers is how
a real-world case, after which it was found to be suitable. to efficiently extract knowledge from experts and transform this
The last methodology was proposed by Zhao, Miao, and Guan extracted knowledge into a machine usable format. Another chal-
(2013). This methodology constructs an intelligent knowledge map lenge is the miscommunication in maps, when the users of the map
for complex product development. The process involves seven and makers do not do not see eye to eye, or do not share the same
steps: being context information aware; getting the current task language, nor agree on what the purposes of the knowledge map
and related information; getting the product structure, transfer- are. Since a knowledge map is abstract, it captures representation.
ring the context information to knowledge needs; constructing the These representations, to be useful, must be understood and shared
demand characteristics of knowledge and generating knowledge by all (Eppler & Simon, 2008). Knowledge mapping of cross bound-
retrieval expression, retrieval and sorting; choosing the knowledge aries is also one of the key challenges. Thus, organisations must
464 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 11
Summaries of methodologies identified for knowledge map building, from different resources.

Methodology Methodology details

Eleven—step Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

methodology
(Bargent, 2002)
Identify requirements: define Information audit: define a list Define information sources to Modify the stop-word list:
the goal of the K-Map, define a of detailed of every data source use: refine the list generated update the list of words of LDS
set of business pains, define used including: electronic from step 2, generating a new that are already excluded from
the targeting data sources. information document, list, and then define a list of a the map to include any
management system files and prioritized known as the industry or organisational
databases. training set. specific terms.
Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8
Configure the LDS: type and Generate people profiles: from Set up data sources for Create the map: three steps are
numbers of used spiders and the master source, the profile spidering: in the discovery involving primarily, add
the various rules must be should be generated as well server, setting up the training repositories to process, review
configured against each of the updating the generated set of data and defining each the settings of the knowledge
spiders on the first time of profiles from supplementary or data source to its lowest. map, create knowledge map
using LDS. a secondary source.
Step 9 Step 10 Step 11
Train the K-Map: teach the Generate affinities: affinities Test the K-Map: finally,
system correct document for specific users identify by undergo a level of end user
placement and category labels the managers; automatic tests to evaluate the
of the taxonomy, and ensure discovery based on documents effectiveness of the knowledge
that meaningful category that a person has edited, read map as well as to ensure that
labels appear. and/or authored. all document placement and
categorisation has been
completed.

Six—step methodology Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

(Kim et al., 2003)
Defining organisational Process map analysis: extract Knowledge extraction: through Knowledge profiling: give
knowledge: define ontology; organisational knowledge a process map identify attributes to the extracted
define scope and level of detail. based on the business process, prerequisite, used and knowledge, derive
experience produced knowledge relationships with process
Step 5 Step 6
Knowledge linking: examine K-Map validation: walk
profile made in preceding step, through with users, subject
confirm existing links, identify matter experts, business
new ones managers and K-Map
producers

Four—phase Phase 1: plan

methodology
(Lecocq, 2006)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Identifying K-Map objectives, Set up a K-Map steering Determining right balance Identifying components,
scope and stakeholders committee that includes between K-Map approaches. validate the choice of
representatives from key components, Identify the
sponsors and stakeholders pathway through which
K-Map flows.
Phase 2: Collect Phase 3: Map
Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8
Define ontological framework Conducting inventory, develop Defining and selecting the Crafting the K-Map: In this
to specify the common a plan for collecting, reviewing, tools. Test and validate the step, a template and a legend
concepts and their links storing and sharing selected tools. must be elaborated to
information and knowledge represent the flow’s
knowledge, as well as the links
to people
Phase 4: validate and use
Step 9 Step 10 Step 11
Validating the K-Map by a Exploiting the K-Map: educate Revising, maintaining and
walkthrough with actual users people to better understand enhancing the K −Map;
and people who contributed to the components and use the conduct periodical
its production map reassessments by examining
log files

Three—stage Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

methodology
(Mansingh et al.,
2009)
Developing the ontology of the Creating the process map Extracting the K-Map by
knowledge domain through representations by using extracting the instances using
ontology feasibility, kick up, standards such as flowcharts or an ontology and gives the
refinement and evaluations petri nets relationship between the
concepts
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 465

Table 11 (Continued)

Methodology Methodology details

Seven—step Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

methodology (Pei &
Wang, 2009)
Set up a project team that Analyse the knowledge Define the business knowledge Determine the basic structure
comprises of managers, resources requirement of the domain and the map and relationship between the
technical staff and users. main user group distribution nodes
Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Select and evaluate Confirm knowledge- Update the K-Map and
development tools classification, their continue evaluating it
relationship, and then draw iteratively.
initial map.

Three—level Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

methodology (Liu, Li
et al., 2009)
Knowledge tagging on Topic selection on the domain Topic association on the
individual level level inter-domain level

Nine steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Methodology (Zhao
et al., 2013)
Context information aware Getting the current task and Getting the product structure Transferring the context
related information information to knowledge
needs
Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Steps 8 & 9
Constructing the demand Knowledge retrieval and Choosing the knowledge point Determining the related type
characteristics of knowledge sorting and visual displayed dimension
and generate knowledge and lastly drawing a
retrieval expression knowledge map from different
aspects

increase the capability to map their knowledge across internal and of knowledge maps), why (objectives of knowledge maps), who
external boundaries and between domain experts (Quintas, 2002). (stakeholders involved) and how (what is being mapped and in
In addition, organisational leadership and culture should form the what way).
foundation for successful knowledge mapping. The lack of active The study has revealed that there are very few empirical stud-
management is expected to mean that insufficient money, time, ies directed towards some topics of knowledge maps; for instance,
and talent will handicap the process of knowledge mapping. it is notable that the mixed research method has been used little.
According to Eppler (2004), the key challenges encountering Perhaps additional mixed method research would provide value to
map makers are: grouping the knowledge with the right references this field. In addition, in terms of the methodologies for building
in a framework that every person can relate to, the challenge of knowledge maps there is no standard methodology yet, thus the
information overload, reducing complex structures to graphic sym- topic deserves more attention placed on it in relation to the pro-
bols, the risk of using an outdated map, and the potential risk effects vision of a standard method. Another striking finding is that only
if the map is seen by unauthorised users. four studies have studied the adoption of knowledge maps. Yet, we
In the same way, Vestal (2005), stated that the main challenges are not the first to highlight this need. The lack of knowledge maps
that might affect knowledge maps implementation in an organisa- adoption research has been emphasised by other researchers over
tion are: lack of understanding of the flow of knowledge within the the years e.g. Lee & Fink (2013) and Wang, Huang, and Yang (2012).
organisation, the knowledge maps team not having the right team Future research is necessary to show in what way organisations
members, that classical ‘knowledge is power’ and how this pre- have adopted knowledge maps.
vents knowledge from being successfully shared, and the failure to Therefore, beyond reviewing what is already known about
understand the business process. Thus, as we can see some of these knowledge maps, we should also address what we need to know by
barriers are personal and outside of management’s direct control, identifying relevant research questions from different viewpoints
yet management can still control these challenges by applying pull (conceptual, implementation, and stakeholders) as a high-level
and push strategies to help workers overcome their concerns and research agenda. We were inspired by Guy, Fielt, and Gable (2014)
pull them towards utilising knowledge maps. to develop the questions shown in Table 13.
However, there is a well-known agreement between practi-
tioners and academics stating that successful knowledge maps
6. Discussion and conclusions
requires careful planning and implementation, so that the many
challenges of using and making maps mentioned above can be
In this study, we presented an overview of the wide distribution
avoided. Table 12 summarises the key challenges and barriers of
of knowledge map publications by conducting a systematic review
knowledge maps.
study on articles written during 2000–2013. A multi-step process
was performed to select the studies, i.e. they were searched for in
5.7. What are the limitations and gaps in current research? (RQ7) databases by using terms to identify related studies; some were
excluded based on the criteria of exclusion, while relevant studies
This study has examined the current understanding of knowl- were included based on analysis of their titles and abstracts, and
edge maps as reported in the literature. Though knowledge maps finally the primary studies were obtained based on full text reading.
have gained significance and have become a well-established field In order to afford a descriptive overview of knowledge maps’
in the KM domain, the current body of knowledge in some dis- status, this study systematically identified relevant studies, result-
ciplines remains limited. Thus, there is a strong need for a better ing in a primary set of 132 articles that focused on knowledge maps.
understanding of the what (valuable and compelling conceptions The results of the study reflect that the key contributors to knowl-
466 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Table 12
Key challenges and barriers of knowledge maps.

Reference No. Key challenges and barriers

(Renukappa & Egbu, 2004) 5 䊏 Mapping of dynamic knowledge

䊏 Cross boundary knowledge mapping
䊏 Knowledge representation
䊏 Organisational leadership and culture
䊏 Mapping tacit knowledge

(Eppler, 2004) 3 䊏 Complex structures to graphic symbols

䊏 Outdated map
䊏 Unauthorized users

(Vestal, 2005) 4 䊏 Failure to understand the business process

䊏 Lack of understanding knowledge flow
䊏 Having the right teamThe classical
“knowledge is power”

(Dang, Zhang, Chen et al., 2011) 2 䊏 Interactive search and analysis

䊏 Inclusion of essential document sources

Table 13
A research agenda for understanding knowledge maps.

Topics Questions

Conceptual 䊏 How can a knowledge map be used as a technology enabler to foster collaboration and cooperation across an entire organisation?
considerations 䊏 Which criteria should be used in selecting the knowledge maps to fit the business strategy?
䊏 How can we prioritise between the different knowledge maps systems?

Implementation considerations 䊏 Which work tasks and organisational challenges can be expected in knowledge maps’ adoption?
䊏 How can we integrate knowledge maps systems and other systems?
䊏 Which critical success factors should we have in mind during the implementation of knowledge maps?

Stakeholders considerations 䊏 How can knowledge map makers deal with the diverse and conflicting interests of stakeholders?
䊏 What is the impact of stakeholder influence on decisions, processes and outcomes?

edge maps’ studies spanned across a broad spectrum of disciplines titioners. The findings can act as a foundation for researchers, e.g.
ranging from education, business, construction, services, health, they may use this study to identify new research questions, get an
governmental institutions and the environment. overview of current research and position and align their own work.
From a high-level overview, the studies fell into seven thematic Practitioners may use this study to gain a greater understanding
categories of knowledge maps: benefits and utilisations, systems of the practical challenges when implementing knowledge maps,
and tools development, frameworks and models, methodologies of and then accurately align their efforts when encountering them.
building, classification, adoption and general reviews. Additionally, it can also assist the beginner researcher with where
We can see from the classification results that a large major- to locate and publish different types of related knowledge map
ity of the 132 primary studies belong to category one (i.e. benefits research and thus gain useful and interesting insights into the excit-
and utilisations) and category two (i.e. systems and tools develop- ing field of knowledge map study.
ment) with 48% of studies. On the other hand, only 3% were related Nonetheless, the method of research was not able to exclude
to knowledge maps adoption. Thus, it is recommended that more some identified limitations. One of the main limitations of this SLR
research effort needs to be targeted on how to improve the adop- could be the possibility of bias in the selection of studies. In order to
tion of knowledge maps across and within organisations. In fact, ensure that the process of selection was as unbiased as possible, we
due to their growing popularity, we believe that the current usage developed a study protocol prior to the start of the review which
and adoption of knowledge maps in organisations is even greater we believe is detailed enough to provide an assessment of how
than what appears from the data reported in this study. we reached the relevant articles. Moreover, to ensure the unbiased
In addition, research methodologies associated with knowledge selection of studies, a multistage process was utilised as suggested
maps were identified and discussed. The majority were qualita- by Kitchenham (2007) and described in Section 3.4.
tive studies (38%) followed by quantitative studies (34%). However, Another limitation of this study could be the possibility of
mixed studies consisted of only 3%. In the same way, the review excluding relevant articles. In order to minimise this risk clear
revealed the distributions of the included studies with respect to inclusion/exclusion criteria have been defined. Thus, during the
the research methods. That included case studies (32%) and exper- article selection phase two researchers were involved in checking
iments (28%). In fact, these two methods cover 60% of the studies. the completeness and the suitability of each article for inclusion.
However, other methods such as design science, surveys, reviews, The final noteworthy limitation of this review is that we have
mixed and Delphi studies consist of only 11%, 8%, 8%, 2% and 1% omitted a search for grey literature as it is particularly hard to iden-
of the total studies, respectively. Additionally, the other issues and tify. Instead, we focused on the recommended databases presented
key challenges associated with knowledge maps implementation in the systematic review guidelines. However, we acknowledge
were identified and discussed. that the inclusion of grey literature could have further increased
In conclusion, by reviewing and recapitulating what we know the validity of our findings. Overall, this review provides us with a
in relation to knowledge maps and how organisations actually point of view on where the field of knowledge maps research stands
use them as an advantage, we consider that this study could be today.
valuable for a wide range of professionals, researchers and prac-
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 467

Appendix A. Primary studies references.

S ID References
S1 Liu, Jie, Liu, J., Chao, L., & Chen, J. (2007). A Knowledge Map Based Composite Services Model and its Application in
WSG-Based Services Discovery. In Third International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid (SKG 2007), pp.
592–593. Ieee. doi:10.1109/SKG.2007.55.
S2 Vieritz, H., Schmitz, H., Law, E. L., Scheffel, M., Schilberg, D., & Jeschke, S. (2013). A Knowledge Map Tool for Supporting
Learning in Information Science. In CSEDU, pp. 717–723.
S3 Mitchell, S. M., & Seaman, C. B. (2011). A Knowledge Mapping Technique for Project-level Knowledge Flow Analysis. In
International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 347–350. Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ESEM.2011.45.
S4 Zheng, Q. (2013). A Learning Navigation Path Algorithm based on Knowledge Map in E-Learning. In e-Learning and
e-Technologies in Education (ICEEE), 2013 Second International Conference, pp. 180–185.
S5 Haller, H., & Abecker, A. (2010). Designing a knowledge mapping tool for knowledge workers. In Knowledge-Based and
Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, pp. 660–669. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
S6 Liu, L., Li, J., & Lv, C. (2009). A Method for Enterprise Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 153(2), 143–153. doi:10.1002/sres.
S7 Chen, Chen-tung, Pai, P., & Hung, W. (2013). A New Decision-Making Process for Selecting Project Leader Based on
Social Network and Knowledge Map. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 15(1), 36–46.
S8 Liu, Jihong. (2013). A New Integration Mechanism for Knowledge Map of Complex Product Development. In 10th
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), pp. 520–525.
S9 Zhu, X., & Wang, Y. (2009). A Relation Combination Model for Knowledge Maps. In Information Engineering and
Computer Science, 2009. ICIECS 2009. International Conference, pp. 1–5.
S10 Xiong, Q., Wang, Y., Guo, J., & Wu, G. (2008). A Searchable Knowledge Map Based on Ontology. In Fourth International
Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid, pp. 457–460. Ieee. doi:10.1109/SKG.2008.104.
S11 Shaw, R.-S. (2010). A study of learning performance of e-learning materials design with knowledge maps. Computers &
Education, 54(1), 253–264. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.007.
S12 Cheng, Y., Chuang, H., & Wen, C. (2009). A Study on Applying Mind Mapping to Build a Knowledge Map of the Project
Risk Management of Research and Development. In Fourth International Conference on Innovative Computing,
Information and Control, pp. 30–33.
S13 Renukappa, & Egbu, C. O. (2004). Knowledge Mapping: Concepts and Benefits for A Sustainable Urban Environment. In
the 20th Annual Conference Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Vol. 2, pp. 1–12.
S14 Berg, C. Van Den, & Popescu, I. (2005). An experience in knowledge mapping. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2),
123–128. doi:10.1108/13673270510590263.
S15 Lee, M. H., & Tserng, H. P. (2006). Applying Knowledge Map for Junior Construction Engineer. in ISARC2006 (pp.
746–750).
S16 Chen, Chen-tung, Pai, P., & Hung, W. (2011). Applying Linguistic VIKOR and Knowledge Map in Personnel Selection.
Asia Pacific Management Review, 16(4), 491–502.
S17 Krb, P. (2013). Association between Teleology and Knowledge Mapping. In Knowledge Engineering, Machine Learning
and Lattice Computing with Applications, pp. 143–152.
S18 Lee, W. B., Shek, V., & Cheung, B. (2007). Auditing and Mapping the Knowledge Assets of Business Processes—An
Empirical Study. In Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, pp. 11–16.
S19 Burkhard, R., Meier, M., Smis, M., Allemang, J., & Honisch, L. (2005). Beyond Excel and Powerpoint: Knowledge Maps
for the Transfer and Creation of Knowledge in Organizations. In Ninth International Conference on Information
Visualisation (IV’05), pp. 76–81. Ieee. doi:10.1109/IV.2005.27.
S20 Bahr, G. S., Dansereau, D. F., The, S., Education, E., Winter, N., Taylor, P., & Navair, U. S. N. (2005). Bilingual Knowledge
Maps as a Presentation Format: (BiK Maps) Delayed Recall and Training Effects. The Journal of Experimental Education,
73(2), 101–118.
S21 Karimi, B., & Saeedikia, M. (2009). Building a Knowledge Map Based on Process Mapping for R & D Centers. Australian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2405–2409.
S22 Zhangang, H., & Jianhua, Y. (2010). Building Knowledge Map for Product Development Based on GAKME Method. In
2010 Second International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, pp. 696–699. Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ETCS.2010.567
S23 Rao, L., Mansingh, G., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2012). Building ontology based knowledge maps to assist business process
re-engineering. Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 577–589. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.014
S24 Mansingh, G., Osei-Bryson, K. M., & Reichgelt, H. (2009). Building ontology-based knowledge maps to assist
knowledge process outsourcing decisions.Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 37–51.
S25 Chung, W., Chen, H., & Jr, J. F. N. (2003). Business Intelligence Explorer: A Knowledge Map Framework for Discovering
Business Intelligence on the Web. In 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 00, pp. 1–10.
S26 Jetter, A. (2006). Codification—Knowledge Maps. In Knowledge Integration, pp. 77–90. Physica-Verlag HD.
S27 Sukontrawongsarote, B., & Srivihok, A. (2007). Comparison of Classification algorithms for knowledge mapping of
expert in Energy industry. In International DSI/Asia and Pacific DSI 2007, pp. 1–11.
S28 Barirani, A., Agard, B., & Beaudry, C. (2011). Competence maps using agglomerative hierarchical clustering. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(2), 373–384. doi:10.1007/s10845-011-0600-y.
S29 Crampes, M., Ranwez, S., Villerd, J., Velickovski, F., Mooney, C., Emery, A., & Mille, N. (2006). Concept maps for
designing adaptive knowledge maps. Information Visualization, 5(3), 211–224. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500127.
S30 Su, C. Y., & Wang, T. I. (2010). Construction and analysis of educational assessments using knowledge maps with
weight appraisal of concepts. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1300–1311. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.027.
S31 Zhao, G., Miao, P., & Guan, Y. (2013). Construction of Intelligence Knowledge Map for Complex Product Development.
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, 6(3), 82–87.
S32 Gordon, J.L. (2000). Creating knowledge maps by exploiting dependent relationships. Knowledge-Based Systems,
13(2–3), 71–79. doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00048-4.
S33 Gordon, John L. (2001). Creating Knowledge Structure Maps to support Explicit Knowledge Management. In ES2000
(pp. 34–48).
S34 Yang, J.-B. (2007). Developing a knowledge map for construction scheduling using a novel approach. Automation in
Construction, 16(6), 806–815. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2007.02.005.
468 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

S35 Yoon, B., Lee, S., & Lee, G. (2010). Development and application of a keyword-based knowledge map for effective R&D
planning. Scientometrics, 85(3), 803–820. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0294-5
S36 Woo, J.-H., Clayton, M. J., Johnson, R. E., Flores, B. E., & Ellis, C. (2004). Dynamic knowledge map: reusing experts’ tacit
knowledge in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction, 13(2), 203–207. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2003.09.003.
S37 Heide, T., & Lis, L. (2012). Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management
Systems. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4001–4010. Ieee. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.229.
S38 Lai, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., & Chou, C.-Y. (2009). How knowledge map fit and personalization affect success of KMS in
high-tech firms. Technovation, 29(4), 313–324. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.007.
S39 Dudezert, A., & Leidner, D. E. (2011). Illusions of control and social domination strategies in knowledge mapping
system use. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(5), 574–588. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.17.
S40 Lee, C. C., Liu, B. J., & Chang, C. C. (2011). Integrated Learning Courses and Library Resources with Personal Knowledge
Map. Advanced Materials Research, 403–408, 5146–5149. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.403-408.5146.
S41 Yang, Q., Song, B., Lu, W. F., & Zhang, Y. (2007). Integrating knowledge maps in design process configurations for
concurrently engineered product development. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(3), 431–445.
doi:10.1243/09544054JEM621.
S42 Yoo, K., Suh, E., & Kim, K.-Y. (2007). Knowledge flow-based business process redesign: applying a knowledge map to
redesign a business process. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 104–125. doi:10.1108/13673270710752144.
S43 Moradi, R., & Eghbali, N. (2012). Knowledge Map as a Decision Support Tool for Expert Finding in Research-based
Organizations. In 6’th International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST’2012), pp. 1195–1200.
S44 Lin, F., & Hsueh, C. (2006). Knowledge map creation and maintenance for virtual communities of practice. Information
Processing & Management, 42(2), 551–568. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.026.
S45 Pyo, S. (2005). Knowledge map for tourist destinations—needs and implications. Tourism Management, 26(4), 583–594.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.001.
S46 Shou, W., Fan, W., Liu, B., & Lai, Y. (2013). Knowledge Map Mining of Financial Data.
TSINGHUASCIENCEANDTECHNOLOGY, 18(1), 68–76.
S47 Zhuge, H., & Luo, X. (2004). Knowledge Map Model. In Grid and Cooperative Computing-GCC, pp. 381–388. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg.
S48 Irani, Z., Sharif, a. M., & Love, P. E. D. (2007). Knowledge mapping for information systems evaluation in
manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), 2435–2457. doi:10.1080/00207540601020452.
S49 Tao, C., & Wu, J. Y. (2012). Knowledge Mapping of ITS Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan Using Social Network
Analysis. In 12th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, pp. 563–567.
S50 Hansen, B. H., & Kautz, K. (2004). Knowledge Mapping: A Technique for Identifying Knowledge Flows in Software
Organisations. In Software Process Improvement, pp. 126–137. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
S51 Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2009). Knowledge Mapping: Analysis Framework. In Mapping Nanotechnology Innovations and
Knowledge, pp. 1–22. Springer, US.
S52 Lee, J., & Fink, D. (2013). Knowledge mapping: encouragements and impediments to adoption. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(1), 16–28. doi:10.1108/13673271311300714.
S53 Subrt, T., & Brozova, H. (2001). Knowledge Maps and Mathematical Modelling. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management Volume 5 Issue 4, pp. 497–504, 5(4), 497–504.
S54 Quintas, P. (2002). Implications of the Division of Knowledge for Innovation in Networks. In Networks, Alliances and
Partnerships in the Innovation Process, pp. 135–162. Springer, US.
S55 Kealy, A. (2001). Knowledge Maps and Their Use in Computer-Based Collaborative Learning Environments. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 325–349.
S56 Donnell, A. M. O., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing.
Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.
S57 Liu, D.-R., Ke, C.-K., Lee, J.-Y., & Lee, C.-F. (2008). Knowledge maps for composite e-services: A mining-based system
platform coupling with recommendations. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 700–716.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.10.005.
S58 Lee, J. H., & Segev, A. (2012). Knowledge maps for e-learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 353–364.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.017.
S59 Wang, S. (2002). Knowledge maps for managing Web-based business. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(7),
357–364. doi:10.1108/02635570210439445.
S60 Gómez, A., Moreno, A., Pazos, J., & Sierra-Alonso, A. (2000). Knowledge maps: An essential technique for
conceptualisation. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 33(2), 169–190. doi:10.1016/S0169-023X(99)00050-6.
S61 Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413.
S62 Egbu, C. (2008). Knowledge Mapping Techniques Within The Construction Industry: An Exploratory Study. In CIB
W102-Information and knowledge management in Buildings, pp. 48–57.
S63 Eppler, M. J. (2001). Making Knowledge Visible Through Intranet Knowledge Maps: Concepts, Elements, Cases. In 34th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Making, Vol. 00, pp. 1–10.
S64 Ferreira, P. (2009). Linking knowledge management and leadership through knowledge mapping. In Management and
Service Science, 2009 MASS’09. International Conference, pp. 1–4. IEEE.
S65 Velardi, P., Cucchiarelli, A., & Antonio, F. D. (2008). Monitoring the status of a research community through a
Knowledge Map. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, 6(3), 32–33. doi:10.3233/WIA-2008-0141.
S66 Li, X., Hu, D., Dang, Y., Chen, H., Roco, M. C., Larson, C. a, & Chan, J. (2009). Nano Mapper: an Internet knowledge
mapping system for nanotechnology development. Journal of nanoparticle research, 11(3), 529–552.
doi:10.1007/s11051-008-9491-z.
S67 Ong, T.-H., Chen, H., Sung, W., & Zhu, B. (2005). Newsmap: a knowledge map for online news. Decision Support Systems,
39(4), 583–597. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.03.008.
S68 Watthananon, J., & Mingkhwan, a. (2012). Optimizing Knowledge Management using Knowledge Map. Procedia
Engineering, 32, 1169–1177. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.02.073.
S69 Jalalimanesh, A., & Homayounvala, E. (2011). organizational knowledge mapping based on library information system
irandoc case study. in m cc ssi mccsis, Vol. 66951430, pp. 3–11.
S70 Fu, X., & Dang, Y. (2010). Research on Knowledge Map Construction in Intelligentized Content Website. In 2010
International Conference on Computer, Mechatronics, Control and Electronic Engineering (CMCE) Research, pp. 406–409.
S71 Liu, T., Shi, Y., & Wu, C. (2009). Research on the Application of Expert Knowledge Map Based on Social Network
Analysis. In Eighth IEEE International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, pp. 632–635. Ieee.
doi:10.1109/DASC.2009.70.
S72 Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, H., & Shen, J. (2013). Reusing design knowledge based on design cases and knowledge map.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 1063–1077. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9239-7.
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 469

S73 Huang, Y. W., Jiang, Z. H., & Liu, L. J. (2013). SNA Based Expert Knowledge Map Design for Ship-Block Scheduling
Decision-Making. Advanced Materials Research, 694–697, 3522–3525.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.694-697.3522.
S74 Jin-song, G. A. O., Da-peng, L. I., & Xue-dong, W. (2009). Study on Knowledge Map Construction for Virtual Team Based
on Ontology. In IT in Medicine & Education, ITIME’09. IEEE International Symposium, pp. 360–365.
S75 Yongjin, Z., Xinyan, H., Jiancang, X., & Zhiguo, W. (2008). Study on the Knowledge Visualization and Creation
Supported Kmap Platform. In First International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (WKDD 2008) (pp.
154–159). Ieee. doi:10.1109/WKDD.2008.129.
S76 Velardi, P., Cucchiarelli, A., & Petit, M. (2007). Supporting Scientific Collaboration in a Network of Excellence Through a
Semantically Indexed Knowledge Map. In Enterprise Interoperability, pp. 231–241. Springer, London.
S77 Liu, P., & Li, X. (2011). The Application of Expertise Knowledge Map in Human Resource Management. In International
Conference on Management and Service Science, pp. 1–4. Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICMSS.2011.5998043.
S78 W. Vestal, Knowledge Mapping: The Essentials for Success. APQC Publications, Houston, TX., 2005, p. 75.
S79 Görgen, İ. (2008). The Effects of Differences in the Configurations of Knowledge Maps (k-map). Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 33, 257–176.
S80 Görgen, İzzet, & The, M. (2013). The Effects of Using Student-Generated and Expert-Generated Knowledge Maps on
Acquisition Suggested Citation: Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, A(53), 171–184.
S81 Chen, C. C., Shaw, R., & Knight, M. B. (2010). the efficacy of knowledge map in object-oriented software training:
ado.net components. Management Research and Practice, 2(2), 132–153.
S82 Liang, J., Jiang, Z.-H., Su, H., & Wang, K.-M. (2007). The Research and Application of Process Knowledge Map’
Constructing Method. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 24(1), 30–41.
doi:10.1080/10170660709509019.
S83 Handzic, M. (2004). The Role of Knowledge Mapping in Electronic. In Knowledge Management in Electronic Government,
pp. 9–17. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
S84 Chan, K., & Liebowitz, J. (2006). The synergy of social network analysis and knowledge mapping: a case study. Int. J.
Management and Decision Making, 7(1), 19–35.
S85 Tserng, H. P., Yin, S. Y., & Lee, M. (2010). The use of knowledge map model in construction industry. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 16(3), 332–344. doi:10.3846/jcem.2010.38.
S86 Liu, Jun, Wang, J., Zheng, Q., Zhang, W., & Jiang, L. (2012). Topological analysis of knowledge maps. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 36, 260–267.
S87 Eppler, M. J., & Simon, H. A. (2008). A Process-Based Classification of Knowledge Maps and Application Examples.
Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 59–71. doi:10.1002/kpm.
S88 Wang, J., Liu, J., & Zheng, Q. (2011). Visualization of Knowledge Map: A Focus and Context Approach. In International
Conference on Human-centric Computing 2011 and Embedded and Multimedia Computing 2011, Vol. 102, pp. 323–335.
Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2105-0.
S89 Kim, H., Fillies, C., Smith, B., & Wikarski, D. (2002). Visualizing a Dynamic Knowledge Map Using Semantic Web
Technology. In Engineering and Deployment of Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 130–140. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg.
S90 Zheng, Q., Qian, Y., & Liu, J. (2010). Yotta: A Knowledge Map Centric E-Learning System. In 7th International Conference
on E-Business Engineering, pp. 42–49. Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICEBE.2010.43.
S91 Wang, M., Huang, C., & Yang, T. (2012). Acceptance of Knowledge Map Systems: An Empirical Examination of System
Characteristics and Knowledge Map Systems Self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Management Review, 17(3), 263–280.
S92 Huang, S.-L., Lin, S.-C., & Chan, Y.-C. (2012). Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging
for knowledge sharing. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 599–617. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.07.004.
S93 Shih, J. (2012). A Comparison of Knowledge Map and Keyword Search in Knowledge Retrieval. In Proceedings of the
Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference, V. Kachitvichyanukul, H.T. Luong, and R. Pitakaso
Eds., pp. 1596–1601.
S94 Venkatsubramanyan, S., & Perez-carballo, J. (2004). Multiword Expression Filtering for Building Knowledge Maps. In
Second ACL Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Integrating Processing, pp. 40–47.
S95 Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as
complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131.
S96 Martin Davies, W. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rationale approach. Higher Education, 58(6),
799–820. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9226-9.
S97 Wickramasinghe, A., Karunathilake, I., Widanapathirana, N., Kuruppu, O., & Liyanage, I. (2011). Effectiveness of mind
maps as a learning tool for medical students. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 30–32.
S98 Egbu, C, Quintas, P and Demaid, A 2006, Knowledge Mapping and Bringing about Change for the Sustainable Urban
Environment. A report of Transition Project Research Funded by the EPSRC Sustianble Urban Environment
Programme, p. 79.
S99 Balaid, A. S. S. (2012). A Comprehensive Review of Knowledge Mapping Techniques. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION
SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION, 3(1), 71–76.
S100 Scavarda, A. J. (2004). A Review of the Causal Mapping Practice and Research Literature. In Second World Conference on
POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, pp. 612–624.
S101 Tao, Y., Wu, Y., & Li, J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Knowledge Maps in Business Application. In Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting
of Western Decision Institute, pp. 1–21. Big Island, Hawaii.
S102 Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they
matter? Springer Science Business Media, 87, 1–23. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6.
S103 Kang, I., Park, Y., & Kim, Y. (2003). A framework for designing a workflow-based knowledge map. Business Process
Management Journal, 9(3), 281–294. doi:10.1108/14637150310477894.
S104 Driessen, S., Huijsen, W.-O., & Grootveld, M. (2007). A framework for evaluating knowledge-mapping tools. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(2), 109–117. doi:10.1108/13673270710738960.
S105 Mostafa Jafari; Peyman Akhavan; Atieh Bourouni; Roozbeh Hesam Amiri. (2009). A Framework For The Selection Of
Knowledge Mapping Techniques. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 10(1), 1–8.
S106 Republic, C. (2011). Collaborative Knowledge Mapping. In 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Technologies, pp. 25–29.
S107 Ebener, S., Khan, A., Shademani, R., Compernolle, L., Beltran, M., Lansang, M. A., & Lippman, M. (2006). Knowledge
mapping as a technique to support knowledge translation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 636–642.
S108 Yun, G., Shin, D., Kim, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Knowledge-mapping model for construction project organizations. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 15(3), 528–548. doi:10.1108/13673271111137475.
470 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

S109 F. Yasin and C. Egbu, “critical steps to knowledge mapping in facilities management organisation,” in 27th Annual
ARCOM Conference, 2011, no. September, pp. 603–612.
S110 Abdul Aziz, A.-A., & Abdullah, Hamidah Ibrahim, R. (2012). Towards the Development of K-Map Model in Visualizing
the Dengue Hotspot Using Venn Diagram and AHP Technique. International Journal of Software Engineering, 2(1), 7–13.
doi:10.5923/j.se.20120201.02.
S111 Longe, F. A., Ogude, C. U., Science, I., & Ontario, L. (2011). Towards the Development of an organizational Knowledge
Map for Public Sector Operations in Oyo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Computing & ICT Reference Format, 4(2), 33–40.
S112 Kim, S. (2003). Building the knowledge map: an industrial case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 34–45.
S113 Brahami, M., Atmani, B., & Matta, N. (2013). Dynamic knowledge mapping guided by data mining: Application on
Healthcare. J Inf Process Syst, 9(1), 1–30.
S114 Lachner, A., & Pirnay-dummer, P. (2010). MODEL BASED KNOWLEDGE MAPPING − A NEW APPROACH FOR THE
AUTOMATED GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE. In Learning and Instruction in the
Digital Age (pp. 3–20). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1551-1.
S115 Bargent, J. (2002). 11 Steps to Building a Knowledge Map. e-program.com.
S116 Liebowitz, J. (2005). Linking social network analysis with the analytic hierarchy process for knowledge mapping in
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 76–86. doi:10.1108/13673270510582974.
S117 Wexler, M. N. (2001). The who, what and why of knowledge mapping. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(3),
249–264. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005868.
S118 Chen, Chun-sung, & Lin, Y. (2012). Enhancing Knowledge Management for Engineers Using Mind Mapping in
Construction. New Research on Knowledge Management Technology, 1–13.
S119 Okada, A. and C. (2008). Designing Open Educational Resources through Knowl- edge Maps to enhance Meaningful
learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 15(7), 209–220.
S120 Hellström, T., & Husted, K. (2004). Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic environments: A focus
group study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 165–180. doi:10.1108/4691930410512987.
S121 Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., Tech, V., & Jennifer, C. R. (2012). The Effects of Mind Mapping Activities on Students ’ Motivation.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–22.
S122 Akhavan, P., & Pezeshkan, A. (2013). Developing a knowledge map-driven framework for human resources strategy
formulation. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(3), 234–261. doi:10.1108/JKIC-05-2013-0009.
S123 Nozicka, J., & Republic, C. (2011). Current expertise location by exploiting the dynamics of knowledge. Journal Of
Systems Integration, 4, 40–50.
S124 Burnett, S., Illingworth, L., & Webster, L. (2004). Knowledge auditing and mapping: a pragmatic approach. Knowledge
and Process Management, 11(1), 25–37. doi:10.1002/kpm.194.
S125 Ermine, J., Boughzala, I., & Tounkara, T. (2006). Critical Knowledge Map as a Decision Tool for Knowledge Transfer
Actions. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 129–140.
S126 Lecocq, R. (2006). Knowledge mapping: a conceptual model, pp. 1–96.
S127 Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Hu, P. J.-H., Brown, S. A., & Chen, H. (2011). Knowledge mapping for rapidly evolving domains: A
design science approach. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 415–427. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.10.003.
S128 Nelson, D. K. (2009). Knowledge Mapping in a Not-For-Profit Firm: A Case Study. pconisar.org, 2, 0–3.
S129 Brinkmann, A. (2005). knowledge maps − tools for building structure in MATHEMATICS. international Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–10.
S130 Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., & Xeromerites, S. (2008). The Use of Conceptual Maps for Competencies Mapping and
Knowledge Formalization in a Virtual Lab. In A. Bernard & S. Tichkiewitch (Eds.), Methods and Tools for Effective
Knowledge Life-Cycle-Management (pp. 213–225). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78431-9.
S131 DLIS, A. T. (2006). Knowledge Maps for E-Literacy in ICT- Rich Learning Environments. Journal of Library & Information
Services in Distance Learning, 2(4), 67–68. doi:10.1300/J192v02n04.
S132 Pei, X., & Wang, C. (2009). A Study on the Construction of Knowledge Map in Matrix Organizations. In international
conference of knowledge management and information retrieval, pp. 102–107.
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 471

Appendix B. Quality assessment criterion.

Score of each paper on QA criteria. Column ‘S ID’ contains labels to the original studies to be found in Appendix A. QAC is short for
“Quality Assessment Criterion”.
S ID QAC1 QAC2 QAC3 QAC4 QAC5 Score
S1 2 2 1 0 0 5
S2 2 2 1 1 1 7
S3 2 2 2 1 1 8
S4 2 2 1 1 1 7
S5 2 2 1 1 1 7
S6 2 2 1 1 1 7
S7 2 2 1 1 1 7
S8 2 2 2 2 2 10
S9 2 2 2 1 1 8
S10 2 2 1 1 1 7
S11 2 2 2 2 2 10
S12 2 2 2 2 1 9
S13 2 2 1 1 0 6
S14 2 2 2 2 2 10
S15 2 2 1 1 0 6
S16 2 1 1 1 0 5
S17 2 2 1 1 1 7
S18 2 2 2 2 2 10
S19 2 2 1 1 1 7
S20 2 2 2 2 2 10
S21 2 2 1 1 1 7
S22 1 2 1 1 2 7
S23 1 2 2 2 2 9
S24 2 2 2 2 2 10
S25 1 2 1 1 1 6
S26 2 2 2 2 2 10
S27 2 2 2 1 1 8
S28 2 2 1 0 0 5
S29 2 2 1 1 1 7
S30 2 2 2 2 2 10
S31 2 2 1 0 0 5
S32 2 1 1 1 1 6
S33 2 1 1 1 0 5
S34 2 2 1 1 1 7
S35 2 2 1 0 0 5
S36 2 2 1 0 0 5
S37 2 1 1 1 1 6
S38 2 2 2 2 2 10
S39 2 2 1 1 1 7
S40 2 2 1 1 0 6
S41 2 2 1 1 1 7
S42 1 2 2 2 2 9
S43 2 2 1 1 0 6
S44 2 2 2 2 2 10
S45 2 1 2 1 1 7
S46 2 2 1 0 0 5
S47 2 2 1 1 1 7
S48 2 2 1 1 1 7
S49 2 2 1 1 1 7
S50 2 2 2 2 2 10
S51 1 1 1 1 1 5
S52 2 2 2 2 2 10
S53 2 0 1 1 1 5
S54 2 2 0 0 1 5
S55 2 2 2 2 2 10
S56 2 2 2 2 2 10
S57 1 2 2 2 2 9
S58 2 2 1 1 1 7
S59 2 1 1 1 1 6
S60 2 1 1 1 1 6
S61 1 2 1 1 1 6
S62 2 2 1 0 0 5
S63 2 2 2 2 2 10
S64 2 1 1 1 1 6
S65 2 1 1 1 1 6
S66 1 1 2 2 2 8
S67 2 2 2 2 2 10
S68 2 1 1 1 1 6
S69 2 2 1 1 1 7
472 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

S70 2 1 1 1 1 6
S71 2 0 1 1 1 5
S72 1 2 1 1 1 6
S73 2 2 1 1 0 6
S74 2 2 1 1 1 7
S75 2 2 1 1 1 7
S76 1 1 1 1 1 5
S77 2 2 2 1 1 8
S78 1 2 1 1 1 6
S79 2 1 1 1 1 6
S80 2 2 1 1 1 7
S81 2 2 1 1 1 7
S82 2 1 1 1 1 6
S83 2 2 1 0 0 5
S84 2 1 2 2 2 9
S85 2 2 2 2 2 10
S86 2 1 1 1 1 6
S87 2 2 2 2 2 10
S88 2 1 1 1 1 6
S89 2 1 1 1 1 6
S90 2 2 2 1 1 8
S91 2 2 2 2 2 10
S92 2 2 2 2 2 10
S93 2 1 1 1 1 6
S94 2 1 1 1 1 6
S95 2 2 2 2 2 10
S96 1 1 1 1 1 5
S97 2 2 1 1 1 7
S98 2 2 2 2 2 10
S99 2 0 1 1 1 5
S100 2 2 1 1 1 7
S101 2 2 1 1 1 7
S102 2 2 1 1 1 7
S103 2 2 1 1 1 7
S104 2 2 1 1 1 7
S105 2 1 1 1 1 6
S106 2 1 1 1 1 6
S107 2 2 1 1 1 7
S108 2 2 2 2 2 10
S109 2 2 1 0 0 5
S110 2 2 1 1 0 6
S111 2 2 1 1 0 6
S112 2 2 2 2 2 10
S113 2 2 2 2 2 10
S114 2 2 1 0 0 5
S115 2 2 1 0 0 5
S116 2 1 1 1 1 6
S117 2 2 2 2 2 10
S118 2 2 1 1 1 7
S119 2 2 1 1 1 7
S120 2 2 2 1 1 8
S121 2 2 2 1 1 8
S122 2 2 2 1 1 8
S123 2 2 1 1 1 7
S124 2 2 1 1 1 7
S125 2 2 2 1 1 8
S126 2 2 2 2 2 10
S127 1 2 1 1 1 6
S128 2 2 2 1 1 8
S129 2 2 1 1 1 7
S130 2 2 1 1 1 7
S131 2 2 1 1 0 6
S132 2 1 1 1 0 5

Appendix C. Study citation count for all the primary studies.

S ID Citation S129 19 S64 3 S51 0

S61 386 S34 18 S76 3 S62 0
S56 306 S42 18 S82 3 S63 0
S117 162 S55 18 S4 2 S66 0
S112 148 S19 16 S16 2 S69 0
S32 137 S96 16 S41 2 S70 0
S36 136 S127 15 S52 2 S71 0
S67 121 S20 14 S77 2 S72 0
S116 116 S ID Citation S106 2 S73 0
S44 110 S113 14 S109 2 S74 0
S60 105 S33 13 S131 2 S78 0
S95 105 S94 13 S3 1 S79 0
S84 97 S119 13 S7 1 S80 0
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 473

S102 88 S58 12 S9 1 S81 0

S25 80 S121 12 S12 1 S86 0
S45 68 S92 11 S31 1 S88 0
S120 65 S26 9 S ID Citation S93 0
S124 65 S108 9 S37 1 S99 0
S35 45 S30 7 S47 1 S100 0
S103 45 S39 7 S65 1 S101 0
S107 44 S68 7 S91 1 S110 0
S125 42 S83 7 S118 1 S111 0
S59 37 S85 7 S1 0 S114 0
S11 34 S75 6 S2 0 S115 0
S104 34 S89 6 S5 0
S50 32 S90 6 S6 0 S ID Citation
S38 31 S105 6 S8 0 S122 0
S14 28 S28 5 S15 0 S123 0
S29 28 S53 5 S17 0 S126 0
S57 27 S98 5 S21 0 S128 0
S87 26 S18 4 S27 0 S130 0
S23 24 S54 4 S40 0 S132 0
S24 19 S10 3 S43 0
S48 19 S13 3 S46 0
S97 19 S22 3 S49 0

References
Davies, M. (2010). pp. 1–23. Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument
Abdul Aziz, A.-A., Abdullah, R., & Ibrahim, Hamidah. (2012). Towards the mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? (87) Springer Science
development of K-map model in visualizing the dengue hotspot using venn Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
diagram and AHP technique. International Journal of Software Engineering, 2(1), Dieste, O., & Padua, O. A. G. (2007). Developing search strategies for detecting
7–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.se.20120201.02 relevant experiments for systematic reviews. In empirical software engineering
Akhavan, P., & Pezeshkan, A. (2013). Developing a knowledge map-driven and measurement, ESEM 07. First international symposium IEEE, 215–224.
framework for human resources strategy formulation. Journal of Donnell, A. M. O., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as
Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(3), 234–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.
JKIC-05-2013-0009 Driessen, S., Huijsen, W.-O., & Grootveld, M. (2007). A framework for evaluating
Anne Sigismund Huff, M. J. (2002). Mapping strategic knowledge p. 302. London: knowledge-mapping tools. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 109–117.
Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738960
Balaid, A. S. S. (2012). A comprehensive review of knowledge mapping techniques. Dudezert, A., & Leidner, D. E. (2011). Illusions of control and social domination
Journal of Information Systems Research And Innovation, 3(1), 71–76. strategies in knowledge mapping system use. European Journal of Information
Backhaus, Sattari, S., Hees, F. and Henning, K. (2006). A Web-based knowledge map Systems, 20(5), 574–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.17
for integrating expert knowledge into higher education, I7th international Duffy, J. (2000). The KM technology infrastructure. Information Management
conference information technology based higher education and training, Journal, 34(2), 62–66.
ITHET’06., pp. 61–66. Ebener, S., Khan, A., Shademani, R., Compernolle, L., Beltran, M., Lansang, M. A.,
Bargent, J. (2002). 11 Steps to Building a Knowledge Map. e-program.com. et al. (2006). Knowledge mapping as a technique to support knowledge
Van Den, Berg C., & Popescu, I. (2005). An experience in knowledge mapping. translation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 636–642.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 123–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: toward taxonomy. Journal of
13673270510590263 Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233.
Brinkmann, A. (2005). Knowledge maps—tools for building structure in Egbu, C. (2008). Knowledge mapping techniques within the construction industry:
mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–10. an exploratory study. CIB W102-information and knowledge management in
Burkhard, R., Meier, M., Smis, M., Allemang, J., & Honisch, L. (2005). Beyond excel buildings, 48–57.
and powerpoint: knowledge maps for the transfer and creation of knowledge Egbu, C., Quintas, P., & Demaid, A. (2006). Knowledge Mapping and Bringing about
in organizations. Ninth international conference on information visualisation Change for the Sustainable Urban Environment (p. 79).
(IV’05), 76–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IV. 2005.27. IEEE Einsfeld, K., Ebert, A., Kerren, A., & Deller, M. (2009). Knowledge generation
Burnett, S., Illingworth, L., & Webster, L. (2004). Knowledge auditing and mapping: through human-centered information visualization. Information Visualization,
a pragmatic approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 25–37. 8(3), 180–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ivs.2009.15
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.194 Eppler, M. J. (2001). Making Knowledge Visible Through Intranet Knowledge Maps:
Castles, R., Lohani, V. K., Castles, R., Lohani, V. K., & Kachroo, P. (2008). Knowledge Concepts, Elements, Cases. 34th Hawaii international conference on system
maps and their application to student and faculty assessment. 38th ASEE/IEEE sciences making, Vol. 00, 1–10.
frontiers in education conference, 4–11. IEEE. Eppler, M. J. (2004). Making knowledge visible through knowledge maps: concepts,
Chan, K., & Liebowitz, J. (2006). The synergy of social network analysis and elements cases. Handbook on knowledge management (Vol. 1) Berlin Heidelberg:
knowledge mapping: a case study. International Jounal of Management and Springer., pp. 189–205.
Decision Making, 7(1), 19–35. Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual
Chen, C., & Lin, Y. (2012). Enhancing knowledge management for engineers using diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge
mind mapping in construction. New Research on Knowledge Management construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210. http://dx.
Technology, 1–13. doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., & Xeromerites, S. (2008). The use of conceptual Eppler, M. J., & Simon, H. A. (2008). A process-based classification of knowledge
maps for competencies mapping and knowledge formalization in a virtual lab. maps and application examples. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1),
In A. Bernard, & S. Tichkiewitch (Eds.), Methods and tools for effective knowledge 59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm
life-cycle-management (pp. 213–225). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Ferreira, P. (2009). Linking knowledge management and leadership through
Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78431-9 knowledge mapping. Management and service science, 2009 MASS’09.
Chung, W., Chen, H., Nunamaker Jr., J.F., (2003). Business intelligence explorer: a International conference (p. 1–4). IEEE.
knowledge map framework for discovering business intelligence on the web. FM (2012). Knowledge management operations. knowledge management.
36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 1–10. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from https://armypubs.us.
Crampes, M., Ranwez, S., Villerd, J., Velickovski, F., Mooney, C., Emery, A., & Mille, army.mil/doctrine/index.html.
N. (2006). Concept maps for designing adaptive knowledge maps. Information Fu, X., & Dang, Y. (2010). Research on knowledge map construction in
Visualization, 5(3), 211–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500127 intelligentized content website. 2010 international conference on computer,
Dang, Y. A. N., Zhang, Y., Chen, H., & Larson, C. A. (2011). C. Castillo-Chavez, H. mechatronics control and electronic engineering (CMCE) research, pp. 406–409
Chen, W. B. Lober, M. Thurmond, & D. Zeng (Eds.), Knowledge mapping for Gilbert, J. B. Probst, Steggen Raub, K. R. (2000). Managing knowledge-Building blocks
bioterrorism-related literature (27) (pp. 311–338). Springer Science + Business for success, John Wiley & Sons (p. 360).
Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6892-0 Giuffrida, R., & Dittrich, Y. (2013). Empirical studies on the use of social software in
Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Hu, P. J.-H., Brown, S. A., & Chen, H. (2011). Knowledge mapping global software development—a systematic mapping study. Information and
for rapidly evolving domains: a design science approach. Decision Support Software Technology, 55(7), 1143–1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.
Systems, 50(2), 415–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.10.003 01.004
474 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475

Glass, R. L., Vessey, I., & Ramesh, V. (2002). Research in software engineering: an Lee, W. B., Shek, V., & Cheung, B. (2007). Auditing and mapping the knowledge
analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology, 44(8), 491–506. assets of business processes–an empirical study. Knowledge science engineering
Gómez, A., Moreno, A., Pazos, J., & Sierra-Alonso, A. (2000). Knowledge maps: an and management, 11–16.
essential technique for conceptualisation. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 33(2), Lee, Jia-yuan, Lee, C., Ke, C.-K., & Liu, D. (2008). Knowledge maps for composite
169–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-023X(99)00050-6 e-services: a mining-based system platform coupling with recommendations.
Gordon, J. L. (2000). Creating knowledge maps by exploiting dependent Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 700–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
relationships. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(2–3), 71–79. http://dx.doi.org/10. eswa.2006.10.005
1016/S0950-7051(00)00048-4 Liang, J., Jiang, Z.-H., Su, H., & Wang, K.-M. (2007). The research and application of
Gordon, John L. (2001). Creating Knowledge Structure Maps to support Explicit process knowledge map’ constructing method. Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Knowledge Management. ES2000 (pp. 34–48). Industrial Engineers, 24(1), 30–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Görgen, İ., & The, M. (2013). The effects of using student-generated and 10170660709509019
expert-generated knowledge maps on acquisition suggested citation. Eurasian Liebowitz, J. (2005). Linking social network analysis with the analytic hierarchy
Journal of Educational Research, A(53), 171–184. process for knowledge mapping in organizations. Journal of Knowledge
Guy, G., Fielt, E., & Gable, G. (2014). Exploring shared services from an is Management, 9(1), 76–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270510582974
perspective: a literature review and research agenda. Communications of the Lin, F., & Hsueh, C. (2006). Knowledge map creation and maintenance for virtual
Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 1001–1040. communities of practice. Information Processing & Management, 42(2),
Haller, H., & Abecker, A. (2010). Designing a knowledge mapping tool for 551–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.026
knowledge workers. In Knowledge-based and intelligent information and Liu, Jihong. (2013). A New Integration Mechanism for Knowledge Map of Complex
engineering systems. pp. 660–669. Product Development. 10th international conference on fuzzy systems and
Handzic, M. (2004). The Role of knowledge mapping in electronic. In Knowledge knowledge discovery (FSKD), pp. 520–525.
management in electronic government. pp. 9–17. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Liu, P., & Li, X. (2011). The Application of expertise knowledge map in human
Hansen, B. H., & Kautz, K. (2004). Knowledge mapping: a technique for identifying resource management. International Conference on Management and Service
knowledge flows in software organisations. In Software process improvement. Science, 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2011.5998043. IEEE
pp. 126–137. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Liu, Jie, Liu, J., Chao, L., & Chen, J. (2007). A knowledge map based composite
Hellström, T., & Husted, K. (2004). Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in services model and its application in WSG-based services discovery. Third
academic environments: a focus group study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, international conference on semantics, knowledge and grid (SKG 2007), 592–593.
5(1), 165–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/4691930410512987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SKG.2007.55. IEEE
Hsu, C. (n.d.). Context Information Service on the Project-based Knowledge Map. Liu, L., Li, J., & Lv, C. (2009). A method for enterprise knowledge map construction
Huang, S.-L., Lin, S.-C., & Chan, Y.-C. (2012). Investigating effectiveness and user based on social classification. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 205(2),
acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing. Information 541–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres
Processing & Management, 48(4), 599–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm. Liu, T., Shi, Y., & Wu, C. (2009). Research on the application of expert knowledge
2011.07.004 map based on social network analysis. Eighth IEEE international conference on
Huang, Y. W., Jiang, Z. H., & Liu, L. J. (2013). SNA based expert knowledge map dependable, autonomic and secure computing, 632–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.
design for ship-block scheduling decision-making. Advanced Materials 1109/DASC.2009.70. IEEE
Research, 694–697, 3522–3525. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/ Logan, D., & Caldwell, F. (2000). Knowledge mapping: five key dimensions to
AMR.694-697.3522 consider. Gartner-Group, 30–50.
Ivanov, A., & Cyr, D. (2006). The concept plot: a concept mapping visualization tool Longe, F. A., Ogude, C. U., Science, I., & Ontario, L. (2011). Towards the development
for asynchronous web-based brainstorming sessions. Information Visualization, of an organizational knowledge map for public sector operations in Oyo State,
5(3), 185–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500130 Nigeria. African Journal of Computing & ICT Reference Format, 4(2), 33–40.
Jalali, S. (2012). Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward Mansingh, G., Osei-Bryson, K.-M., & Hirata, T. (2009). Building ontology-based
snowballing. Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical knowledge maps to assist knowledge process outsourcing decisions.
software engineering and measurement (pp. 29–38). Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 37–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Jalalimanesh, A., & Homayounvala, E. (2011). Organizational knowledge mapping 1057/kmrp.2008.37
based on library information system irandoc case study. M CC SSI MCCSIS, Vol. Mitchell, S. M., & Seaman, C. B. (2011). A knowledge mapping technique for
66951430 (pp. 3–11). project-level knowledge flow analysis. 2011 international symposium on
Jetter, A. (2006). Codification—knowledge maps. In Knowledge integration. pp. empirical software engineering and measurement, 347–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.
77–90. Physica-Verlag HD. 1109/ESEM.2011.45. IEEE
Jin-song, G. A. O., Da-peng, L. I., & Xue-dong, W. (2009). Study on knowledge map Moradi, R., & Eghbali, N. (2012). Knowledge map as a decision support tool for
construction for virtual team based on ontology. IT in medicine & education expert finding in research-based organizations. 6’th international symposium on
ITIME’09. IEEE international symposium, 360–365. telecommunications (IST’2012) (pp. 1195–1200).
Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., Tech, V., & Jennifer, C. R. (2012). The effects of mind mapping Jafari, Mostafa, Akhavan, Peyman, Bourouni, Atieh, & Hesam Amiri, Roozbeh.
activities on students’ motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of (2009). A framework for the selection of knowledge mapping techniques.
Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–22. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 10(1), 1–8.
Karimi, B., & Saeedikia, M. (2009). Building a knowledge map based on process Nelson, D. K. (2009). Knowledge mapping in a not-for-profit firm: a case study.
mapping for R & D centers. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), pconisar.org, 2, 0–3.
2405–2409. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps:
Kealy, A. (2001). Knowledge maps and their use in computer-based collaborative a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448. http://dx.doi.
learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), org/10.3102/00346543076003413
325–349. Nidhra, S., Yanamadala, M., Afzal, W., & Torkar, R. (2013). Knowledge transfer
Kim, S., Suh, E., & Hwang, H. (2003). Building the knowledge map: an industrial challenges and mitigation strategies in global software development—a
case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 34–45. http://dx.doi.org/10. systematic literature review and industrial validation. International Journal of
1108/13673270310477270 Information Management, 33(2), 333–355.
B.A. Kitchenham, S.C. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews Nozicka, J., & Republic, C. (2011). Current expertise location by exploiting the
in Software Engineering. Keele University, EBSE Technical Report, Vol. V2 (pp. dynamics of knowledge. Journal of Systems Integration, 4, 40–50.
1–65). Retrieved from http://community.dur.ac.uk/ebse/resources/guidelines/ Okada, A. C. (2008). Designing open educational resources through knowledge
Systematic-reviews-5-8.pdf. maps to enhance meaningful learning. International Journal of Learning
Krb, P. (2013). Association between teleology and knowledge mapping. In Technology, 15(7), 209–220.
Knowledge engineering machine learning and lattice computing with applications. Okada, A., Tomadaki, E., Shum, S. B., & Scott, P. (2007). Combining Knowledge
pp. 143–152. Mapping and Videoconferencing for Open Sensemaking Communities.
Lachner, A., & Pirnay-dummer, P. (2010). Model based knowledge mapping—a new Ong, T.-H., Chen, H., Sung, W., & Zhu, B. (2005). Newsmap: a knowledge map for
approach for the automated graphical representation of organizational online news. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 583–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.
knowledge. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaias, & D. Sampson (Eds.), 1016/j.dss.2004.03.008
Learning and instruction in the digital age (pp. 69–85). Boston, MA: Springer US. Pei, X., & Wang, C. (2009). A study on the construction of knowledge map in matrix
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1551-1 organizations. International conference of knowledge management and
Lai, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., & Chou, C.-Y. (2009). How knowledge map fit and information retrieval (pp. 102–107).
personalization affect success of KMS in high-tech firms. Technovation, 29(4), Pyo, S. (2005). Knowledge map for tourist destinations—needs and implications.
313–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.007 Tourism Management, 26(4), 583–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
Lecocq, R. (2006). Knowledge mapping: a conceptual model (pp. 1–96). 2004.03.001
Lee, Joseph, & Fink, D. (2013). Knowledge mapping: encouragements and Quintas, P. (2002). Implications of the division of knowledge for innovation in
impediments to adoption. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 16–28. networks. In Networks, alliances and partnerships in the innovation process.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300714 Springer US., pp. 135–162.
Lee, J. H., & Segev, A. (2012). Knowledge maps for e-learning. Computers & Rao, L., Mansingh, G., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2012). Building ontology based
Education, 59(2), 353–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.017 knowledge maps to assist business process re-engineering. Decision Support
Lee, M. H., & Tserng, H. P. (2006). Applying knowledge map for junior construction Systems, 52(3), 577–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.014
engineer. ISARC2006 (pp. 746–750). Régine, L. (2009). KMapper—an ontology-based knowledge-mapping application.
 A. Balaid et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 451–475 475

Renukappa, & Egbu C. O. (2004). knowledge mapping: concepts and benefits for a Wexler, M. N. (2001). The who, what and why of knowledge mapping. Journal of
sustainable urban environment. The 20th annual conference association of Knowledge Management, 5(3), 249–264.
researchers in construction management (ARCOM), Vol. 2 (pp. 1–12). White, D. (2002). Knowledge mapping and management. London: IRM Press., p. 328.
Republic, C. (2011). Collaborative knowledge mapping. 11th International Wickramasinghe, A., Karunathilake, I., Widanapathirana, N., Kuruppu, O., &
Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (pp. 25–29). Liyanage, I. (2011). Effectiveness of mind maps as a learning tool for medical
Zhang, W., Hun, L., Du, H., Deng, Y. (2009). Researches on the development and students. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 30–32.
application of the knowledge map as the indexing and mining tools. Computer Woo, J.-H., Clayton, M. J., Johnson, R. E., Flores, B. E., & Ellis, C. (2004). Dynamic
network and multimedia technology, CNMT. International symposium. IEEE. knowledge map: reusing experts’ tacit knowledge in the AEC industry.
pp. 1–5. Automation in Construction, 13(2), 203–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.
Scavarda, A. J. (2004). A review of the causal mapping practice and research 2003.09.003
literature. Second world conference on POM and 15th annual POM conference, Xiong, Q., Wang, Y., Guo, J., & Wu, G. (2008). A Searchable Knowledge Map Based
612–624. on Ontology. Fourth International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid,
Shou, W., Fan, W., Liu, B., & Lai, Y. (2013). Knowledge map mining of financial data. 457–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SKG.2008.104. IEEE
Tsinghua Science And Technology, 18(1), 68–76. Yang, J.-B. (2007). Developing a knowledge map for construction scheduling using
Speel, P. H., Shadbolt, N., Vries, W. D., Dam, P. H. V., & O’Hara, K. (1999). Knowledge a novel approach. Automation in Construction, 16(6), 806–815. http://dx.doi.
mapping for industrial purposes. Twelfth workshop on knowledge acquisition, org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.02.005
modelling management (KAW’99) (pp. 2–7). Yang, Q., Song, B., Lu, W. F., & Zhang, Y. (2007). Integrating knowledge maps in
Subrt, T., & Brozova, H. (2001). Knowledge maps and mathematical modelling. The design process configurations for concurrently engineered product
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 497–504. development. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(3), 431–445. http://dx.
Tao, Y., Wu, Y., & Li, J. (2006). A taxonomy of knowledge maps in business doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM621
application. Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of Western Decision Institute (pp. 1–21). Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, H., & Shen, J. (2013). Reusing design knowledge based on
Big Island, Hawaii. design cases and knowledge map. International Journal of Technology and Design
Tiwana, A. (1999). Knowledge management toolkit, the amrit tiwana knowledge Education, 23(4), 1063–1077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9239-7
management toolkit, the (First Edit., pp. 0–482). Prentice Hall PTR. Yasin, F., & Egbu, C. (2011). Critical steps to knowledge mapping in facilities
Tserng, H. P., Yin, S. Y., & Lee, M. (2010). The use of knowledge map model in management organisation. 27th annual ARCOM conference, 603–612.
construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(3), Yoo, K., Suh, E., & Kim, K.-Y. (2007). Knowledge flow-based business process
332–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.38 redesign: applying a knowledge map to redesign a business process. Journal of
Velardi, P., Cucchiarelli, A., & Petit, M. (2007). Supporting scientific collaboration in Knowledge Management, 11(3), 104–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
a network of excellence through a semantically indexed knowledge map. In 13673270710752144
Enterprise interoperability. London: Springer., pp. 231–241. Yoon, B., Lee, S., & Lee, G. (2010). Development and application of a keyword-based
Vestal, W. (2005). Knowledge mapping: the essentials for success. Houston, TX: APQC knowledge map for effective R&D planning. Scientometrics, 85(3), 803–820.
Publications., p. 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0294-5
Wang, H. (2011). Research on the model of knowledge representation ontology Yun, G., Shin, D., Kim, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Knowledge-mapping model for
based on framework in intelligent learning system. International Conference on construction project organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3),
Electrical and Control Engineering, 6757–6760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ 528–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137475
ICECENG.2011.6056799. IEEE Zhao, G., Miao, P., & Guan, Y. (2013). Construction of intelligence knowledge map
Wang, J., Liu, J., & Zheng, Q. (2011). Visualization of knowledge map: a focus and for complex product development. Journal of Engineering Science and
context approach. In H. Park, X. Liao, & R. Zheng (Eds.), Proceedings of the Technology Review, 6(3), 82–87.
international conference on human-centric computing 2011 and embedded and Zheng, Q., Qian, Y., & Liu, J. (2010). Yotta: a knowledge map centric E-learning
multimedia computing 2011 (Vol. 102) (pp. 323–335). Dordrecht: Springer system. 7th International conference on E-business engineering, 42–49. http://dx.
Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2105-0 doi.org/10.1109/ICEBE.2010.43. IEEE
Wang, M., Huang, C., & Yang, T. (2012). Acceptance of knowledge map systems: an Zhu, X., & Wang, Y. (2009). A relation combination model for knowledge maps.
empirical examination of system characteristics and knowledge map systems Information engineering and computer science, 2009. ICIECS 2009. International
self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Management Review, 17(3), 263–280. conference, 1–5.
Watthananon, J., & Mingkhwan, A. (2012). Optimizing knowledge management Zhuge, H., & Luo, X. (2004). Knowledge Map Model. In Grid and cooperative
using knowledge map. Procedia Engineering, 32, 1169–1177. http://dx.doi.org/ computing-GCC. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer., pp. 381–388.
10.1016/j.proeng.2012.02.073