The research scope in concept mapping research can be extended with the investigation of complementary concept mapping approaches, which are visual representations that complement the classical node link diagrams from Novak. To do so, concept mapping researchers can draw inspiration from architects. This article presents four strategies of architects to map concepts. The analysis shows what concept mapping researchers can benefit from architects: first, from the practice of architects to use complementary visualizations, which is investigated in the research field of Knowledge Visualization. Second, from their practice to structure information, which is investigated in the research field of Information Architecture. Both research fields are relevant for concept mapping researchers who investigate new formal approaches that complement the concept mapping approach taken by Novak. Third, the article discusses examples of complementary concept maps in different business situations.
NovakJD. Learning theory applied to the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher1980; 42: 280–285.
2.
NovakJDGowinDB. Learning How to Learn.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1984.
3.
AusubelDP. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning.Grune & Stratton: New York, 1963.
4.
AlpertSR. Comprehensive mapping of knowledge and information resources: The case of Webster. In: TerganS-OKellerT, (Eds). Knowledge and Information Visualization: Searching for Synergies, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3426. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2005; 208–227.
5.
TerganS-OKellerT. Visualizing knowledge and information. An introduction. In: TerganS-OKellerT, (Eds). Knowledge and Information Visualization: Searching for Synergies, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3426. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2005; 1–23.
6.
ÅhlbergM. Varieties of concept mapping. Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping2004 (Pamplona, Spain), Universidad Pública de Navarra.
7.
NeelyJEde NeufvilleR. Hybrid real options valuation of risky product development projects. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management2001; 1: 29–46.
8.
SharpePKeelinT. How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review1998; 76: 45–57.
9.
RasielEMFrigaPN. The McKinsey Mind.McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 2002.
10.
MalikF. Strategie des Managements komplexer Systeme: Ein Beitrag zur Management-Kybernetik evolutionärer Systeme, vol. 7te Auflage. Paul Haupt Verlag: Bern Stuttgart Wien, 2002.
11.
LyneisJM. System dynamics for business strategy: A phased approach. System Dynamics Review1999: 15(1)37–70.
12.
LyneisJM. System dynamics for market forecasting and structural analysis. System Dynamics Review2000; 16: 3–25.
13.
FordDNStermanJD. Dynamic modeling of product development processes. System Dynamics Review1998; 14: 31–68.
14.
KaplanRSNortonDP. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes.Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, 2004.
15.
KaplanRSNortonDP. Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review2000; 78(5): 167–176.
16.
MonkA. The rich picture: A tool for reasoning about work context. Interactions1998; 5(2): 21–30.
17.
EdenC. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research2004; 159: 673–686.
18.
EdenC. Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research1988; 36: 1–13.
19.
ScanlonJ. Ride the Dow. Wired1999; 7 June.
20.
Vande MoereA. Infoticles: Information modeling in immersive environments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information visualization2002 (London).
21.
Vande MoereAMieussetKHGrossM. Visualizing abstract information using motion properties of data-driven particles.Conference on Visualization and Data Analysis 2004, IS&T/SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging 20042004 (San Jose, CA).
22.
BurkhardR. Learning from Architects: The difference between knowledge visualization and information visualization. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualization (IV04)2004 (London, July).
23.
BurkhardR. Knowledge visualization – the use of complementary visual representations for the transfer of knowledge. A model, a framework, and four new approaches. Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, 2005.
24.
EpplerMBurkhardR. Knowledge visualization. In: SchwartzD (Ed). Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management.Idea Press: New York, 2005.
25.
ChenC. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization.Springer: London, 2003. 244.
26.
BurkhardR. Towards a framework and a model for knowledge visualization: Synergies between information and knowledge visualization. In: TerganS-O.KellerT, editors. Knowledge and Information Visualization: Searching for Synergies, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3426. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2005.
27.
FarahMJ. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision. Fundamentals of Cognitive Neuroscience.Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, 2000. 380.
28.
WareC. Information Visualization: Perception for Design.Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, 2000. 438.
29.
KoffkaK. The Principles of Gestalt Psychology.Lund Humphries: London, 1935. 720.
30.
AlaviMLeidnerD. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly2001; 25: 107–136.
31.
BurkhardR. Knowledge visualization sagt mehr als tausend Worte io new management. Zeitschrift für Unternehmenswissenschaften und Führungspraxis2004; 17: 56–58.
32.
KempM. Visualizations. The Nature Book of Art and Science.University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles, 2000.
33.
WurmanRS. Information Anxiety 2. QUE Books: 2000. Indianapolis, Indiana.
34.
WurmanRS. Information Architects.Graphis Inc.: Zurich, 1996. 235.
35.
Louis RosenfeldPM. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web.O'Reilly & Associates: Sebastopol, CA, USA, New York, 1998.
36.
SchmittG. Information Architecture; Basis and Future of CAAD.Birkhäuser: Basel, 1999.
37.
EngeliM, (Ed). Bits and Spaces: Architecture and Computing for Physical, Virtual, Hybrid Realms.Birkhäuser: Basel, Boston, Berlin, 2001.
38.
TufteE. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.Graphics Press: Cheshire, 1983.
CardSKMackinlayJDShneidermanB. Focus and context. In: CardSMackinlayJDShneidermanB (Eds). Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think.Morgan Kaufmann Publications: San Francisco, CA, 1999; 1–34.
43.
BurkhardRMeierM. Tube map: evaluation of a visual metaphor for interfunctional communication of complex projects. Proceedings of I-KNOW 1904 2004 (Graz, Austria, June 30–July 2); 449–456.
44.
BurkhardRMeierM. Tube Map Visualization: Evaluation of a novel knowledge visualization application for the transfer of knowledge in long-term projects. Journal of Universal Computer Science2005; 11: 473–494.
45.
BurkhardR. Knowledge visualization: a comparative study between Project Tube Maps and Gantt Charts. I-Know 19052005 (Graz, Austria).
