Scientometric and Conceptual Assessment of Value Creation: Approaches, Challenges, and Integrative Proposals

GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 182 Scientometric and Conceptual Assessment of Value Creation: Approaches, Challenges, and Integrative Proposals Álvaro Alexander Cano Vargas Facultad de posgrados, Ciencias Administrativas y Contables, Universidad de Manizales, Manizales, Colombia Corresponding author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4811-8628 alvaroalexanderc[email protected]om Milton Marino Gómez Ortiz Facultad de posgrados, Ciencias Administrativas y Contables, Universidad de Manizales, Manizales, Colombia https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9175-3879 surcolombi[email protected] José Carlos López Figueroa Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Unidad Guaymas, México https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9840-6241 jose.lopezfigu[email protected] Jairo Humberto Muñoz Cabrera Escuela Superior de Administración Pública, Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9840-6241 jose.lopezfigu[email protected] José Eduardo Corredor Escuela Superior de Administración Pública, Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-3822 [email protected] Abstract This article explores the conceptual evolution, dominant theoretical frameworks, and the most widely used tools for measuring value creation (VC) between 2000 and 2024, aiming to identify patterns, emerging approaches, and gaps within the specialized literature. Drawing on a systematic review of 553 publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, the study adopted a mixed-methods methodological approach that integrates scientometric analysis with the Tree of Science (ToS) algorithm, thereby enabling the mapping of both consolidated intellectual structures and emerging research trends. The findings reveal a gradual shift away from classical financial approaches toward more holistic perspectives that place sustainability, intellectual capital, and customer experience at the core of value generation. In addition, the analysis identifies three dominant thematic streams: corporate finance, service management, and intangible assets. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 183 In conclusion, value creation within organizations emerges as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that demands flexible analytical frameworks capable of integrating symbolic, relational, and contextual variables. In this regard, the study recommends further exploration of hybrid models such as VAIC and DEA across nontraditional sectors, highlighting the strategic role that dynamic capabilities and human capital play in fostering sustainable value generation. Keywords: Organizational value creation; scientometric analysis; Tree of Science; intellectual capital; sustainability; customer experience; intangible assets; hybrid models GECONTEC Vol. 13(2). 2025 © Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 ISSN 2255-5684 Received el 20 August, 2025 gecontec.org Aceppted el 8 de November, 2025 Author Contributions: All the authors have contributed equally to the manuscript Introduction In the business domain, value creation (VC) has consolidated itself as a central pillar for understanding what organizations currently regard as valuable within contemporary competitive dynamics. Although early conceptualizations framed value through a transactional logic—namely, as a balance between what firms deliver and what stakeholders receive, as articulated by Woodall (2003) and Parasuraman et al. (1988)—more recent approaches have expanded this view by incorporating symbolic, emotional, social, and relational dimensions that shape both customer experience and organizational strategic sustainability. Within this framework, value extends beyond products or services and materializes through interactions, shared knowledge, organizational innovation, and social legitimacy. Such a perspective reinforces the notion of value as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, aligning with proposals such as the Resource-Based View (RBV) and the VRIN model advanced by Jay Barney (1991). Scholars commonly apply this model to identify internal resources and capabilities that enable organizations to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Despite these conceptual advances, both theoretical and methodological challenges persist regarding how scholars and practitioners measure, assess, and manage value across diverse organizational contexts. Against this backdrop, the present article addresses the following research question: What measurement approaches and theoretical trends characterize organizational value creation in indexed scientific literature published between 2000 and 2024? To answer this question, the study conducts a systematic literature review using a mixedmethods approach, drawing on Scopus and Web of Science databases and complementing them with the Tree of Science (ToS) algorithm and scientometric analysis techniques. This approach traces theoretical roots, structural cores, and emerging research streams, thereby offering an integrated view of the field’s evolution. In doing so, the article seeks to enrich the understanding of value creation from a strategic, sustainable, and interdisciplinary perspective. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 184 State of the Art on Organizational Value Creation Research on value creation and capture in business environments has evolved toward approaches that integrate traditional dimensions—such as financial efficiency and competitive advantage—with emerging perspectives focused on sustainability, customer perception, and relational dynamics. Along these lines, Zhu (2024) advances an ecological and quantitative interpretation of the value chain, in which sustainability assumes a central role, although the empirical scope of the analysis remains limited. Complementarily, Karakoç (2023) examines the relationship between trade credit and strategic investment in the Asia– Pacific region; however, this approach remains largely confined to the financial domain. In contrast to these predominantly technical perspectives, Minerbo, Samartini, and Brito (2023) conceptualize value as a relational phenomenon arising from dynamic interactions among actors and structures, while emphasizing the relevance of strategies centered on customer perception. Beyond approaches primarily focused on sustainability, finance, and customer perception, other research streams highlight the intangible dimension of value, which has gained increasing relevance in digital and symbolic environments. The notion of intangible value— less visible yet equally significant—also emerges in the study by Ye, Hu, and Xie (2021), who explore non-obvious forms of value generation, as observed in server software. MurcianoGoroff, Zhuo, and Greenstein (2021) reinforce this perspective by analyzing how hidden software contributes to value creation within business networks. From a marketing standpoint, Chang et al. (2020) demonstrate that consumer identification with brand communities activates both functional and symbolic value pathways, thereby strengthening brand loyalty. This co-creation logic extends to the energy sector, where technological collaboration opens new forms of integration between firms and users, as shown by Volkova, Burda, and Gavrikova (2020) in Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Within this same trajectory of technological and symbolic exploration of value, the academic domain increasingly recognizes big data as a key value driver, given its capacity to enhance both scientific productivity and strategic decision-making. In this context, Dapiton and Canlas (2020) propose an index that combines physical and digital elements within supply chains (European Journal of Educational Research). Taken together, these studies underscore the need for more integrative theoretical frameworks capable of capturing the multiple dimensions that shape value within increasingly digitalized and complex organizational environments. Metodology This study conducted a literature review that combined scientometric analysis techniques with qualitative content analysis. Figure 1 summarizes the main methodological steps. In the initial phase, based on the research problem and the objective of the review, the following search equation was formulated: f(field, keywords) = Title (“value creation”) AND Title-Abstract-Keywords (assessment OR measure*) For data collection, the study relied on the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, both widely recognized for their methodological rigor and global coverage, particularly within the context of systematic reviews (Urina-Triana et al., 2024). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 185 The search yielded a total of 476 documents from Web of Science (WoS) and 516 from Scopus, covering the period from 2000 to April 2024, which marked the date of the most recent update. After merging both sources and removing duplicates—439 records appeared in both databases—the process consolidated a final corpus of 553 unique documents, which served as the basis for the scientometric analysis. This dataset included diverse document types, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, indexed conference papers, books, and book chapters. The entire process of literature review and document screening is summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1. General methodology of the study Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on data retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus (April 2025). The results of this study were organized around two main analytical streams. First, the research conducted a scientometric analysis aimed at tracing the annual evolution of scientific output, while highlighting the countries, journals, and authors with the highest publication volume. Based on the reference set, the study constructed collaboration networks by applying the methodological approach proposed by Hurtado-Marín et al. (2021). Although studies of this nature typically rely on a single database due to the complexity involved in integrating multiple sources, this research successfully combined and standardized information from Records in WoS (n 476) Records in Scopus (n 516) Unique records (n = 553) Duplicates removed (n = 439) Preprocessing Text extraction and web scraping Excel file with 22 sheets Scientometric analysis Tree of Science Scientific output:  Analysis by countries  Analysis by journals  Analysis by authors Roots Trunk Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Identification Projection Eligibility Included GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 186 WoS and Scopus through text-mining techniques and web scraping, thereby constituting a distinctive methodological contribution. Second, the study incorporated a content analysis using the Tree of Science (ToS) algorithm, whose conceptual foundations have received extensive attention in prior research (Eggers et al., 2022; Hurtado-Marín et al., 2021; Valencia-Hernández et al., 2020; Zuluaga et al., 2022). This tool enables the identification of foundational articles (roots), core theoretical contributions (trunk), and emerging thematic trends (branches). Its application has demonstrated relevance across multiple domains, including business studies (Duque et al., 2024; Londoño & Cardona, 2024; Robledo et al., 2023), operational strategies (Vivares et al., 2022), legal studies (Botero et al., 2023), innovative entrepreneurship (Cano-Vargas & Osorio-Toro, 2024), and, more recently, agricultural topics such as organic coffee production (Gómez-Ortiz & Vivares-Vergara, 2024). Collectively, this evidence positions ToS as a novel and robust strategy for conducting systematic literature reviews (Grisales A. et al., 2023). Based on the findings derived from both the scientometric and content analyses, the study finds it necessary to examine in greater depth the main theoretical approaches to the concept of value creation. The following section develops a conceptual framework that synthesizes the dominant perspectives within the specialized literature and situates the results within a strategic lens. Value Creation Based on the analysis conducted and the methodological tools applied, the study identified multiple perspectives on value creation, which allow for a deeper understanding of its conceptual foundations and strategic implications. This section develops a theoretical approach that synthesizes the main perspectives found in recent literature in order to frame the results obtained. Scholars have approached the notion of value creation from multiple angles, integrating technological and process innovation with the promotion of social and environmental wellbeing. Such a broad perspective proves essential for achieving sustainable competitive positioning over the medium and long term (Arturo et al., 2011). Within contemporary debates, the concept has gained increasing prominence, as researchers recognize its impact on both business and societal contexts (Windsor, 2017). Its multidisciplinary nature facilitates analysis from strategic and operational perspectives, which scholars regard as critical for optimizing organizational performance (Laursen & Svejvig, 2016). From this standpoint, value creation operates as a complex and multifaceted process through which organizations, sectors, or territories generate both tangible and intangible benefits. Minerbo, Samartini, and Brito (2023) emphasize that value may emerge from social, relational, and strategic dimensions, thereby enabling its capture across diverse industrial settings. This conceptual evolution has driven the development of new measurement approaches that move beyond traditional economic metrics. Researchers currently employ perceptual scales (Wiesel, 2022) alongside technical methodologies tailored to specific sectors, such as sustainable construction (Alattyih, Haider, & Alsohiman, 2022). In domains such as tourism, value creation manifests through a contextual and experiential lens closely linked to destination image and visitor motivations (Peiró-Signes, Segarra-Oña, GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 187 & Carvache-Franco, 2022). This perspective underscores that the value generated extends beyond financial performance and also materializes through user experience, advances in sustainability, and the relational ties organizations build. Accordingly, value creation consolidates itself as a cross-cutting construct with strategic implications across a wide range of sectors. Measuring Value Creation: Approaches, Challenges, and Strategic Perspectives Value creation has consolidated itself as a fundamental strategic axis for organizations, as its measurement enables the assessment of impact beyond financial performance by incorporating dimensions such as internal processes, sustainability, and human capital (Windsor, 2017; Sveiby, 1997). From human resource accounting to risk-adjusted financial indicators, scholars have developed multiple approaches aimed at assessing both tangible and intangible assets (Milne & Onorato, 2012). In this regard, strategic investment and operational efficiency stand out as key drivers of organizational value generation (Casalegno & Pellicelli, 2013). Within the recent evolution of the value creation concept, approaches that move beyond purely financial and productive metrics have gained prominence by incorporating social, environmental, and cognitive dimensions. This shift toward a broader and more holistic understanding has brought new strategic factors influencing value generation to the forefront. Sustainability emerges as a central dimension in value creation measurement processes, as it integrates environmental impact and social well-being into frameworks traditionally focused on economic performance (Azzari et al., 2024). In parallel, concepts such as intellectual capital and dynamic capabilities enable the capture of organizational adaptability and innovative potential (Saha et al., 2020; Teece et al., 1997). Elements including innovation, collaboration, and organizational learning strengthen value creation and consolidate it as a cross-cutting capability across multiple sectors (Hammervoll, 2012; Bondarouk & OlivasLuján, 2014). Complementarily, emerging approaches such as kansei value expand understanding toward emotional and cognitive dimensions (Shoji, 2023). Within this context, measuring value creation requires an integrative and context-sensitive approach. Nevertheless, despite advances in the field, theoretical fragmentation persists and hinders standardization. In response, the present article offers a critical review aimed at clarifying both the conceptual frameworks and the methodologies applied within the specialized literature. Results Bibliometric Analysis and Conceptual Evolution of Value Creation The bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on organizational value creation (VC) reveals a structured evolution across three main phases: an exploratory emergence phase (2000–2007), a phase of theoretical structuring (2007–2014), and a phase of consolidation and diversification (2014–2023). Figure 2 illustrates the annual evolution of scientific output over the analyzed period, highlighting the growth milestones that mark the transitions between these phases. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 188 Figure 2. Annual Evolution of Scientific Output on Value Creation (2000–2023) Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on data retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus (April 2025). During the exploratory emergence phase (2000–2007), the volume of scientific publications increased markedly, signaling a growing interest in extending the understanding of value beyond its strictly financial dimension. With a growth rate of 39.92%, this stage reflects the initial opening of the field toward new research trajectories (Price, 1963). The phase of theoretical structuring (2007–2014) represents a period of early maturation, characterized by sustained growth of 8.84%. During this interval, scholars consolidated more robust conceptual frameworks for measuring value creation, particularly in areas such as human capital management and strategic investment (Sveiby, 1997; Casalegno & Pellicelli, 2013). From 2014 onward, a phase of consolidation and diversification (2014–2023) emerged, during which scientific output reached higher absolute levels, albeit with a more moderate growth rate (2.39%). This pattern indicates a maturing field marked by the incorporation of new dimensions such as sustainability, intellectual capital, and dynamic capabilities (Azzari et al., 2024; Teece et al., 1997). Nevertheless, the relative decline in citation counts in more recent years raises the challenge of renewing theoretical approaches and avoiding potential thematic saturation that could constrain further conceptual expansion. This cyclical pattern of evolution reflects the natural dynamics of scientific fields and underscores the need to develop more integrative measurement tools. As Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) argue, bibliometric analyses not only trace the conceptual trajectory of a field but also help identify critical gaps and emerging areas of opportunity. In response to this landscape, the present article advances a critical review aimed at enriching the understanding of organizational value creation from a strategic, sustainable, and adaptive perspective. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 189 Country Analysis and Collaboration Networks Beyond the temporal analysis, the study identified the countries with the highest volume of scientific output on organizational value creation. As detailed in Table 1, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Germany lead the field in quantitative terms, revealing a strong concentration of the literature within AngloSaxon and highly industrialized contexts. This geographic distribution highlights not only the prominence of specific economies in knowledge production but also the need to broaden the regional scope of research in order to incorporate perspectives from Latin America, Africa, and other emerging regions. Table 1 Scientific Output by Country Country Publications % Output. Total Citations % Citation s Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 USA 63 12.09% 1828 13.97% 24 7 3 0 Germany 39 7.49% 746 5.70% 12 6 7 2 China 38 7.29% 2324 17.76% 8 3 3 1 Italy 38 7.29% 638 4.88% 12 3 2 4 United Kingdom 28 5.37% 657 5.02% 12 2 2 0 Spain 23 4.41% 804 6.15% 13 1 0 4 Canada 18 3.45% 2385 18.23% 6 2 2 1 France 17 3.26% 683 5.22% 9 2 3 0 India 17 3.26% 138 1.05% 3 1 7 1 Australia 16 3.07% 306 2.34% 6 3 0 0 Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on data retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus (May 2025). The comparative country-level analysis indicates that the United States leads both in scientific output and citation counts, with a strong presence in Q1 journals, thereby consolidating its position as an academic benchmark in the field. China, although exhibiting a publication volume similar to that of Germany and Italy, stands out for a substantially higher number of citations, which suggests significant scholarly impact despite its more limited presence in topquartile journals. In the case of Canada, although its absolute publication volume remains relatively modest, the country displays a notably high citation rate, indicating research with substantial influence. Spain and the United Kingdom, despite lower output levels, align their contributions with high editorial quality standards. By contrast, countries such as India and Australia show comparatively lower impact, although they have managed to publish specific contributions in Q1 journals. These dynamics underscore the importance of employing integrated indicators that combine volume, quality, and impact in order to achieve a more accurate understanding of the geographic distribution of knowledge and the patterns of academic valuation surrounding organizational value creation. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 190 Beyond the country-level analysis, the study constructed an international co-authorship network to visualize connections among countries with the highest scientific output in the field of organizational value creation. As illustrated in Figure 3, these relationships reveal collaboration patterns concentrated primarily along the United States–United Kingdom– China axis, with peripheral nodes across Western Europe, Asia, and Latin America. This structure suggests a partially centralized system in which certain countries function as key hubs articulating global knowledge flows. Figure 3 International Co-authorship Network on Organizational Value Creation Fuente: Elaboración propia con base en consulta a Web of Science y Scopus (abril, 2025). Journal Analysis The scientific collaboration network reveals a high concentration of production and influence in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, which operate as central nodes in the generation and circulation of knowledge on organizational value creation. The growth of international co-authorships and the consolidation of interconnected academic communities point to a process of maturation and internationalization of the field, which strengthens its theoretical foundations and facilitates the development of more integrative and globally comparable measurement models. Table 2 presents the scientific journals with the highest number of publications on organizational value creation between 2000 and 2023, highlighting those with greater academic visibility and a strong presence in top quartiles. This editorial landscape helps clarify the venues in which scholarly production and theoretical debate on the topic converge. Table 2 Scientific Journals with the Highest Output on Organizational Value Creation (2000–2023) Journal Impact Factor HIndex Quartile WoS Scopus Strategic Management Journal 8.50 318 Q1 8 5 Journal of Business Research 2.90 236 Q1 8 4 Service Industries Journal 2.00 76 Q1 6 4 Journal of Cleaner Production 1.98 268 Q1 16 7 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1.58 105 Q1 8 9 Journal of Business and Industrial 0.85 78 Q1 0 4 GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 197 performance (Minerbo, Samartini, & Brito, 2023). From a strategic standpoint, organizational decisions gain relevance insofar as they contribute to generating benefits that remain sustainable over time. In contexts marked by technological and social uncertainty, Wiesel (2022) advocates the use of adaptive financial metrics capable of responding to disruptive dynamics and strengthening organizational responsiveness. Adopting a combined operational–strategic approach, Ye, Hu, and Xie (2021) develop an index for dual supply chains that integrates logistical efficiency, profitability, and optimal resource utilization. Similarly, Brandenburg (2016) demonstrates how effective supply chain management within the European automotive industry preserves value during crisis contexts through cost control and process integration. Along complementary lines, Alattyih, Haider, and Boussabaine (2019) show that energy efficiency and sustainability in building design generate tangible economic benefits. Finally, Nuryakin, Aryanto, and Setiawan (2018) highlight the role of value as a mediating variable between relational capabilities and financial performance, thereby consolidating it as a structural axis of organizational performance. Alongside financial approaches, scholars increasingly examine value creation through the lens of strategic services and customer experience, emphasizing knowledge, human capital, and emotions as key value drivers. Branch 2: Customer Management and Strategic Services Service quality no longer operates solely as an expression of operational efficiency; rather, it emerges from the interaction among intangible assets such as organizational knowledge, human capital, and customers’ emotional experience—all of which drive value creation in competitive environments. Consequently, service management demands dynamic capabilities that enable organizations to adapt, learn, and design meaningful experiences. Within this context, intellectual capital and knowledge management consolidate themselves as fundamental pillars for developing high value-added services by aligning organizational learning with customer expectations, as Pawlowsky et al. (2021) argue. Standards such as ISO 30401 reinforce this framework by promoting greater consistency and responsiveness, which in turn enhance trust and customer loyalty. Complementarily, human capital connects closely with employee well-being and user experience. Studies such as Hussinki et al. (2018, as cited in Evangelista et al., 2023) and Massingham and Tam (2015) demonstrate how internal recognition and job satisfaction directly influence service quality by fostering empathy, commitment, and more personalized relationships. Moreover, a sensory and emotional approach—centered on elements such as serenity and comfort—redefines quality as a symbolic and relational experience. These elements converge in value creation through the strategic management of services (see Figure 7). GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 198 Figure 7 Conceptual Structure of Value Creation from the Perspective of Knowledge Management, Human Capital, and Service Quality Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on Campanella et al. (2019), Pawlowsky et al. (2021), Shoji (2022), Massingham and Tam (2015), Dumay and Guthrie (2017), and Hussinki et al. (2018). Branch 3: Intellectual Capital and Intangible Assets Human, intellectual, structural, and relational capital consolidate their role as key strategic assets for value creation in the banking sector, exerting a direct influence on profitability and competitiveness (Buallay et al., 2020; Jordão et al., 2022). Effective management—particularly under dynamic conditions—enhances indicators such as Tobin’s Q and ROE, although empirical evidence regarding the relationship with ROA remains less conclusive (Nadeem et al., 2017). Given that traditional accounting systems fail to capture these assets adequately (Lev and Gu, 2016), analytical tools such as the adjusted VAIC model and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) have gained prominence, as they enable assessments of efficiency and organizational performance linked to intangible resources (Wanke and Barros, 2016; Curtis et al., 2020). Within merger and acquisition processes, intellectual capital shapes knowledge transfer and structural reorganization (Ge and Huang, 2012; Jang and Yehuda, 2021; Duong, 2021). In the venture capital domain, it adds value through networks, expertise, and structural resources (Tian, 2012; Ivanov and Xie, 2010; Chemmannur et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2011). More recently, perspectives on intellectual value have expanded toward integrative frameworks that incorporate cultural and organizational factors (Weber et al., 2011; Alexandridis et al., 2012), thereby strengthening the application of instruments such as DEA to capture the relevance of intangible assets with greater precision (Cooper et al., SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT (Perception, differentiation, loyalty) Knowledge Management ISO 30401 (Pawlowsky) Post - crisis banking (Campanella) Human Capital and Well-being Commitment (Massingham) Job satisfaction (Hussinki) Emotional and Sensory Value Kansei value (Shoji) Perceived intangibles (Dumay & Guthrie) GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 199 2011). Overall, intellectual capital management redefines value creation by linking it to more integrative and context-sensitive metrics. Figure 8 presents a quantitative perspective through the VAIC model, which integrates physical, human, and structural capital. Higher VAIC scores signal more efficient use of knowledge and available resources. Figure 8 Simplified visual model of the VAIC (Value Added Intellectual Coefficient) Source: VAIC visual model based on Pulic (2000). Authors’ own elaboration. The VAIC model enables an examination of how different components of organizational capital contribute to value creation by accounting for both tangible and intangible resources. Within this framework, capital employed efficiency reflects the ability of physical and financial assets to generate economic value, thereby indicating a more effective use of material investments and available capital. In turn, human capital efficiency signals the extent to which employees’ knowledge, skills, and experience translate into productive outcomes, highlighting the strategic role of talent under competitive conditions. Finally, structural capital efficiency assesses the capacity of systems, internal processes, and organizational culture to sustain and amplify human capital performance, operating as an institutional support that transforms individual knowledge into sustainable organizational capabilities. Taken together, the VAIC framework provides a comprehensive view of organizational performance by integrating value generated by physical, human, and structural assets and by facilitating a more holistic measurement of intangible resources. Discussion of the Results The findings demonstrate a conceptual evolution in organizational value creation (VC), marked by a shift from approaches focused exclusively on financial outcomes toward Value Added (VA) Capital Employed (CE) Intellectual Capital (IC - TOTAL) Capital Employed Efficiency (CEE) Human Capital Efficiency (HCE) Human Capital Efficiency (SCE) VAIC = CEE + HCE + SCE Comentado [LO1]: GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 200 integrated models that increasingly incorporate the role of intangibles, such as human resources and innovation (Windsor, 2017; Sveiby, 1997). Growing scholarly attention to sustainability and customer experience supports the multidimensional view of value advanced by Minerbo et al. (2023), while the diversification phase (2014–2023) justifies the application of hybrid models, such as the Tree of Science, to capture the field’s complexity (Zuluaga et al., 2022). The strengthening of theoretical frameworks such as the Resource-Based View (RBV) and the VRIN model (Barney, 1991) reflects a renewed emphasis on strategic capabilities as drivers of sustainable value creation. From a bibliometric perspective, country-level analyses reveal academic legitimacy structures led by the United States, followed by Canada and China, thereby indicating a concentration of knowledge in regions with high levels of scientific capital (Hurtado-Marín et al., 2021). Likewise, tools such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the VAIC model (Nadeem et al., 2017), applied across sectors including banking and energy, underscore the crosscutting role of intellectual capital in shaping organizational performance. These approaches reinforce the convergence between productivity, reputation, and innovation, thus expanding the strategic scope of intangible assets (Azzari et al., 2024; Buallay et al., 2020). The thematic co-occurrence analysis reveals a systemic view of value that articulates efficiency, sustainability, and intangible assets, aligning with the propositions of Porter (1985) and Wernerfelt (1984) under increasingly adaptive and multidimensional theoretical frameworks. Expansion toward symbolic dimensions emerges in studies on emotional value (Shoji, 2023) and organizational learning (Hammervoll, 2012), which conceptualize value creation as a dynamic and context-dependent process. Although the use of high-quality indexed databases such as Scopus and Web of Science ensures a high level of rigor, their coverage may exclude emerging literature, particularly qualitative and disruptive contributions. Moreover, algorithms such as Tree of Science rely on citation patterns that do not always capture the most recent or innovative contributions with precision. Consequently, future research should complement these approaches with empirical case studies and extend the application of tools such as DEA and VAIC to sectors that remain underexplored. In line with these considerations, incorporating variables such as leadership and organizational culture into longitudinal designs could enable a deeper understanding of how sustainability policies influence value creation. In this regard, Shoji (2023) and Dumay and Guthrie (2017) advocate for models sensitive to symbolic, relational, and emotional dimensions, which move beyond financial metrics and integrate elements such as social legitimacy and strategic resilience within complex organizational contexts. The structural evolution of value creation strategies finds synthesis in Figure 9, a proposal grounded in Minerbo et al. (2023), Shoji (2023), and Zuluaga et al. (2022), which illustrates the transition from traditional models toward more integrative, sustainable, and symbolically oriented approaches. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 201 Figure 9 Conceptual Evolution and Key Findings in Organizational Value Creation: Integration of Theories, Thematic Trends, and Methodological Tools Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on Minerbo et al. (2023), Shoji (2023), Zuluaga et al. (2022), Barney (1991), Porter (1985), Hurtado-Marín et al. (2021), Nadeem et al. (2017), and Buallay et al. (2020). This conceptual integration provides a clear overview of the field’s evolution, thereby enabling the formulation of key conclusions regarding organizational value creation. Conclusions This study offers a comprehensive and up-to-date perspective on organizational value creation by integrating economic, social, and strategic approaches within a multidimensional framework. Its primary contribution lies in the integrated articulation of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and customers’ emotional experiences as central drivers of sustainable value creation, particularly within complex and highly interconnected organizational contexts (Dumay and Guthrie, 2017; Shoji, 2023). In addition, the co-occurrence analysis made it possible to identify a theoretical convergence among three streams that prior research often addressed separately: the financial perspective, the customer-centered approach, and the intangible-oriented view. This synthesis represents a theoretical advancement toward a systemic conceptualization of value, consistent with the evolution of the literature from classical models proposed by Porter (1985), Wernerfelt (1984), and Barney (1991) toward more interdependent and adaptive frameworks (Ma, 2000; Wang, 2022). Conceptual evolution of CVO -From financial approaches to integrative models -Human capital and innovation (Windsor, 2017; Sveiby, 1997) -Emotional value and customer experience (Shoji, 2023) -Multidimensionality of value (Minerbo et al., 2023) Methodological diversification phase (2014– 2023) -Application of Tree of Science (Zuluaga et al., 2022) -Detection of cognitive and emerging structures | Consolidation of strategic theories -Resource-Based View (RBV) and VRIN model (Barney, 1991) -Value as a strategic capability -Complementarity with Porter’s models (1995) and Wernerfelt Bibliometric results -Predominance of the United States, followed by Canada and China -Structures of scientific legitimacy (HurtadoMarín et al.) Bibliometric results -Predominance of the United States, followed by Canada and China -Structures of scientific legitimacy (HurtadoMarín et al.) Proposed improvements and limitations -Limitation: dependence on Tree of Science citation analysis -Risk of excluding recent disruptions -Recommendation: incorporation of empirical case studies Intellectual capital measurement instruments -Application of DEA and VAIC -Cases in banking and energy sectors (Nacićem et al., 2017; Azzari et al., 2014; Buallay et al., 2020) Toward a value-sensitive evaluation -Relational, symbolic, and emotional models -Social legitimacy and strategic resilience -Adaptive framework of organizational value Toward a value-sensitive evaluation -Relational, symbolic, and emotional models (Shoji, 2023) GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 202 Another relevant contribution emerges from the incorporation of the mission measurement paradigm within the field of social entrepreneurship, which emphasizes the need to align evaluation metrics with strategic purpose, thereby expanding traditional analytical frameworks (Ormiston and Seymour, 2011; Christlieb, 2012). The application of hybrid methodologies such as the VAIC model and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) further reinforces the importance of assessing value across multiple dimensions that integrate operational efficiency, organizational well-being, and social legitimacy (Nadeem et al., 2017; Wanke and Barros, 2016). Nevertheless, this study faces certain methodological limitations. Reliance on literature indexed in databases such as Scopus and Web of Science may have excluded valuable contributions from emerging journals or grey literature, thereby constraining the epistemological diversity of the analysis (Zuluaga et al., 2022). Moreover, interpretations derived from co-occurrence networks depend on citation patterns that do not always capture recent conceptual breakthroughs, which may limit the identification of disruptive innovations. Based on these findings, several avenues for future research deserve consideration. First, scholars could apply models such as VAIC and DEA to non-traditional sectors in order to assess their validity beyond financial or energy-related contexts (Curtis et al., 2020; Buallay et al., 2020). Second, longitudinal empirical studies should incorporate variables such as organizational culture, transformational leadership, or collaborative networks to examine how these factors shape value creation under changing conditions. Finally, future research should advance toward evaluative frameworks that embrace symbolic, emotional, and relational dimensions of value, as advocated by Shoji (2023) and Dumay and Guthrie (2017), in order to develop tools better suited to the complexity of contemporary organizational environments. References Alattyih, W., Haider, H., & Boussabaine, H. (2019). Development of value creation drivers for sustainable design of green buildings in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 11, 5867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205867 Alattyih, W., Haider, H., & Alsohiman, N. K. (2022). Value Creation Assessment Tool for Green Buildings: Development and Implementation. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022, Article ID 9855548. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9855548 ouci.dntb.gov.ua+9onlinelibrary.wiley.com+9researchgate.net+9 Alexandridis, G., Mavrovitis, C. F., & Travlos, N. G. (2012). How have M&As changed? Evidence from the sixth merger wave. European Journal of Finance, 18(8), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2011.628401 Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal ofInformetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Arturo, R. C., Jon, H. I., Julen, I. O., & Vicente Molina, M. A. (2011). Organizaciones en el marco de una cultura social innovadora: Propuesta de factores explicativos. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 17(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1135-2523(12)60042-2 Azzari, V., Mainardes, E. W., Cristo-Andrade, S., de Araujo Durans, A., do Vale, C., & Macedo, C. J. T. (2024). Co-creation of value and social marketing: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Creating Value. https://doi.org/10.1177/23949643231220749 GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 203 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Bondarouk, T., & Olivas-Luján, M. R. (2014). Human resource management, social innovation and technology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=4OuCoAEACAAJ Botero, C. M., Milanes, C. B., & Robledo, S. (2023). 50 years of the Coastal Zone Management Act: The bibliometric influence of the first coastal management law on the world. Marine Policy, 150(105548), 105548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105548 Brandenburg, M. (2016). Supply chain efficiency, value creation and the economic crisis: An empirical assessment of the European automotive industry 2002–2010. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.039 Brunetti, A., Rodrigues, L. H., & Gomes, G. C. (2015). Estudo sobre vantagem competitiva sustentável em empresas de construção: Sustainable competitive advantage in construction: Study of Central Region of Paraná. Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa. Buallay, A., Hamdan, A. M., Reyad, S., Badawi, S., & Madbouly, A. (2020). The efficiency of GCC banks: The role of intellectual capital. European Business Review, 32(3), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-04-2019-0053 Cano-Vargas, A. A., & Osorio-Toro, C. A. (2024). Exploring the evolution and trends of innovative entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis. Clío América, 18(35). https://doi.org/10.21676/23897848.5658 Chang, C., Ko, C., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2020). Brand community identification matters: A dual value-creation routes framework. Journal of Product and Brand Management. Chemmannur, T., Krishnan, K., & Nandy, D. (2011). How does venture capital financing improve efficiency in private firms? A look beneath the surface. Review of Financial Studies, 24(12), 4037–4090. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr103 Casalegno, C., & Pellicelli, M. (2013). The human capital impact on the shareholder value creation. https://doi.org/10.13132/2038-5498/2008.2-3.1-31 Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Data envelopment analysis: History, models, and interpretations. Springer. Christlieb, J. (2012). Measuring social value creation: A quantitative study among social entrepreneurs (Tesis de maestría, Technische Universität Berlin). EconStor. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/73197 Curtis, P., Hanias, M., Kourtis, E., & Kourtis, M. (2020). DEA and financial ratios: A prostakeholder view of performance measurement for sustainable value creation in the wind energy sector. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(2), 30–50. Cuéllar, S., Fernández-Bajón, M. T., & De Moya-Anegón, F. (2024). Convergence between absorptive capacity and knowledge appropriation: A new methodology Mapping the hidden links. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 10(1), 100170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100170 Dapiton, E., & Canlas, R. (2020). Value creation of big data utilization: The next frontier for productive scholarship among Filipino academics. European Journal of Educational Research. Díaz, M. R., spino Rodríguez, T. F., & Díaz, R. R. (2015). A Model of Market Positioning Based on Value Creation and Service Quality in the Lodging Industry: An Empirical Application of Online Customer Reviews. Tourism Economics. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2014.0404 Duong, T. (2021). Value creation in Vietnamese bank mergers and acquisitions. In H. Pham & S. Nguyen (Eds.), Recent developments in Vietnamese business and finance (pp. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 204 187–203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59562-1_13 Duque, P., Cárdenas, M., & Robledo, S. (2024). Marketing social: evolución y tendencias. Entramado, 20(1), 10378. https://doi.org/10.18041/19003803/entramado.1.10378 Eggers, F., Risselada, H., Niemand, T., & Robledo, S. (2022). Referral campaigns for software startups: The impact of network characteristics on product adoption. Journal of Business Research, 145, 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.007 Evangelista, P., Kianto, A., Hussinki, H., Vanhala, M., & Nisula, A.-M. (2023). Knowledgebased human resource management, logistics capability, and organizational performance in small Finnish logistics service providers. Logistics, 7(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7010012 Ge, C., & Huang, K. (2012). The impacts of human capital on the value creation by mergers and acquisitions: An event study in the software industry. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Grisales A., A. M., Robledo, S., & Zuluaga, M. (2023). Topic Modeling: Perspectives From a Literature Review. IEEE Access, 11, 4066–4078. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3232939 Gómez-Ortiz, M. M., & Vivares-Vergara, J. A. (2024). Organic coffee production: mapping trends through bibliometric analysis. Clío América, 18(35), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897848.5650 Hall, J. H. (2018). Value creation measures: an industry-based study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(2), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm08-2016-0178 Hall, J. H. (2024). Corporate shareholder value creation as contributor to economic growth. Studies in Economics and Finance, 41(1), 148–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-062021-0255 Hammervoll, T. (2012). Managing interaction for learning and value creation in exchange relationships. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.011 Hurtado-Marín, V. A., Agudelo-Giraldo, J. D., Robledo, S., & Restrepo-Parra, E. (2021). Analysis of dynamic networks based on the Ising model for the case of study of coauthorship of scientific articles. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 5721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-02185041-8 Ivanov, V., & Xie, F. (2010). Do corporate venture capitalists add value to start-up firms? Evidence from IPOs and acquisitions. Financial Management, 39(1), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2009.01067.x Jang, Y., & Yehuda, N. (2021). Resource adjustment costs, cost stickiness, and value creation in mergers and acquisitions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(3), 2023–2056. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12655 Jang, Y., & Yehuda, N. (2021). Resource adjustment costs, cost stickiness, and value creation in mergers and acquisitions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(3), 2264– 2301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12668 Jordão, R. V. D., Almeida, V. R. de, & Novas, J. (2022). Intellectual capital, sustainable economic and financial performance and value creation in emerging markets: the case of Brazil. The Bottom Line Managing Library Finances, 35(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl-11-2021-0103 Karakoç, B. (2023). Trade credit and corporate investment enhancing value creation. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 28(3), 548–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2022.2039084 Laursen, M., & Svejvig, P. (2016). Taking stock of project value creation: A structured literature review with future directions for research and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 736–747. GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.007 Lerner, J., Sorensen, M., & Strömberg, P. (2011). Private equity and long-run investment: The case of innovation. Journal of Finance, 66(2), 445–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15406261.2010.01630.x Lev, B., & Gu, F. (2016). The end of accounting and the path forward for investors and managers. John Wiley & Sons. Londoño, G. A. M., & Cardona, P. F. M. (2024). La perdurabilidad empresarial de los emprendimientos sociales: revisión sistemática y perspectivas de investigación. Tendencias, 25(1), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.22267/rtend.242501.249 López-Cabarcos, M. Á., Srinivasan, S., Göttling-Oliveira-Monteiro, S., & VázquezRodríguez, P. (2019). Tacit knowledge and firm performance relationship: The role of product innovation and the firm-level capabilities. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(2), 330–350. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9590 Ma, H. (2000). Competitive advantage and firm performance. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 10(2), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046396 CiteSeerX+5ResearchGate+5Emerald+5 Milne, A., & Onorato, M. (2012). Risk-Adjusted Measures of Value Creation in Financial Institutions. European Financial Management, 18(4), 578–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2010.00540.x Minerbo, C., Samartini, A., & Brito, L. (2023). Sharing the benefits: How different dimensions contribute to value creation and capture. Industrial Marketing Management, 112, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.01.002 Murciano-Goroff, R., Zhuo, R., & Greenstein, S. (2021). Hidden software and veiled value creation: Illustrations from server software usage. Research Policy. Nadeem, M., Dumay, J., & Massaro, M. (2017). If you can measure it, you can manage it: A case of intellectual capital. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032145 Nascimento, L. da S., Silva, D. S., Chim-Miki, A. F., Costa Júnior, J. C. da, & Salazar, V. S. (2024). The social entrepreneurship value cycle: Generation, appropriation, devolution and transformation of sustainable value. Social Enterprise Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-01-2024-0002 Nuryakin, N., Aryanto, V., & Setiawan, M. (2018). Mediating effect of value creation in the relationship between relational capabilities on business performance. Contaduría y Administración, 63(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.22201/fca.24488410e.2018.1165 Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. (2011). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2011.606331 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Peiró-Signes, Á., Segarra-Oña, M., & Carvache-Franco, M. (2022). Drivers of value creation in an ecotourist destination. In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics (pp. 221–234). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91535-6_16 Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. 167, 167–206. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:102339835 Price, D. J. de Solla. (1963). *Little Science, Big Science*. New York: Columbia University Press. Robledo, S., Duque, P., & Aguirre, A. M. G. (2023). Word of Mouth Marketing: A Scientometric Analysis. The Journal of Scientific Research / Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, 11(3), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.11.3.47 GECONTEC: Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología. ISSN 2255-5684 Cano Vargas, A.A., Gómez Ortiz, M.M., López Figueroa, J.C., Muñoz Cabrera, J.H. and Corredor, J.E. 13(2). 2025 206 Shoji, H. (2023). A theory of kansei value creation with Serenity management as a practical example. In Emotional Engineering, Vol. 9 (pp. 57–65). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05867-7_6 Szabó, R. Z., & Krátki, N. (2018). Social value creation and impact measurement – What do they mean exactly? Theory, Methodology, Practice, 14(1), 15–25. https://ideas.repec.org/a/mic/tmpjrn/v14y2018i01p15-25.html Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AIDSMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z Tian, X. (2012). The role of venture capital syndication in value creation for entrepreneurial firms. Review of Finance, 16(1), 245–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfr003 Urina-Triana, M. A., Piñeres-Melo, M. A., Mantilla-Morrón, M., Butt-Aziz, S., GaleanoMuñoz, L., Naz, S., & Ariza-Colpas, P. P. (2024). Machine Learning and AI Approaches for Analyzing Diabetic and Hypertensive Retinopathy in Ocular Images: A Literature Review. IEEE Access, 12, 54590–54607. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3378277 Valencia-Hernández, D. S., Robledo, S., Pinilla, R., Duque-Méndez, N. D., & Olivar-Tost, G. (2020). SAP Algorithm for Citation Analysis: An improvement to Tree of Science. Ingeniería E Investigación, 40(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.v40n1.77718 Vivares, J. A., Avella, L., & Sarache, W. (2022). Tendencias y retos de investigación en estrategia de operaciones: hallazgos de una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Cuadernos de Gestión, 22(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.211543ja Wang, W. (2022). Toward economic growth and value creation through social entrepreneurship: Modelling the mediating role of innovation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 914700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914700 Wanke, P., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Efficiency drivers in Brazilian insurance: A two-stage DEA meta frontier–data mining approach. Economic Modelling, 53, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.11.002 Weber, Y., Tarba, S. Y., & Reichel, A. (2011). A model of the influence of culture on integration approaches and international M&A performance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 41(3), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO00208825410301 Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 Windsor, D. (2017). Value Creation Theory: Literature Review and Theory Assessment. In Stakeholder Management (Vol. 1, pp. 75–100). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920170000004 Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising “value for the customer”: An attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2003(12), 1–42. Ye, H., Hu, X., & Xie, M. (2021). Construction of value creation index system of dualchannel supply chain. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 178– 183). https://doi.org/10.1145/3482632.3482841 Zhu, L. (2024). Research on green-driven product value creation process. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences. https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-0032 Zuluaga, M., Robledo, S., Arbelaez-Echeverri, O., Osorio-Zuluaga, G. A., & DuqueMéndez, N. (2022). Tree of Science - ToS: A Web-Based Tool for Scientific Literature Recommendation. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 100. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2696