Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (5)
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2020 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (5) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Business models (1)
- Framing (1)
- Managerial cognition (1)
- Tools (1)
- Visualisations (1)
- anniversary (1)
- bibliometrics (1)
- creativity and innovation management (1)
- science mapping (1)
When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co-)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text-mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.
Effecting, but effective?
(2020)
Business model (BM) visualisations have become popular instruments with which to explain and manage today's complex business interactions. Using verbal and graphic elements, they provide simplified representations of reality and can support BM tasks that go beyond working memory's capacities. Visualisations thus reduce cognitive load and represent how practitioners and researchers think about BMs. However, they can also affect their thinking. This constitutes a thus far insufficiently explained tension between effectively reducing reality's complexity and the resulting cognitive biases. Building on cognitive load and framing theory, we qualitatively analysed 103 BM visualisations to explain how visual elements affect visualisations' cognitive effectiveness (helpfulness and ease of applicability) and unfold visual framing effects. By identifying five visual framing effects, we contribute to the cognitive BM perspective and explain how this set of cognitive factors affects BM management and research. We also found that most BM visualisations are not cognitively effective because they consist of unclear and non-parsimonious elements, limiting their cross-contextual application. Furthermore, the analysis revealed certain visualisations with strictly operationalised BM dimensions. These findings provide essential contributions to the literature on BM methods. We conclude by discussing how practitioners and researchers can use BM visualisations and their cognitive impacts accordingly.