Factors Affecting Success of VizSec Applications in Organizational Context: A Technology Organization Environment (TOE) Framework

Introduction

In the modern digital landscape, cyber risks pose a significant challenge for organizations across sectors and sizes; as technology progresses rapidly, more data processing and storage are occurring, necessitating stringent protections to secure sensitive information. Considering cyberattacks’ rising frequency and sophistication, powerful cybersecurity strategies are critically needed to safeguard vital data assets and interests. Information technology highlights organizations’ need to establish comprehensive and operational cybersecurity frameworks (Chatfield & Reddick, 2019). With networked technologies’ swift evolution and immense data processing growth, organizational information is increasingly susceptible to substantial threats. Thus, implementing effective cybersecurity policies and systems is fundamental to ensuring a safe working environment.

Cybersecurity data visualization applications (VizSec) have become integral for combating and reducing the dangers of emerging cyber threats. Using VizSec tools, security analysts and decision-makers can more easily identify patterns, detect anomalies, and respond quickly to potential breaches. VizSec provides an engaging and interactive means of examining massive, heterogeneous data. It can reveal inconsistencies that may signal cyber threats (Lalena & Feinaeur, 2023). By transforming previously cryptic data into intuitive visuals, VizSec enables stakeholders to gain insights, make informed decisions, and react swiftly to evolving cyber risks.

Understanding the factors contributing to VizSec’s efficacy within organizations is vital for improving cybersecurity measures. VicSec will allow responsible teams to determine priorities and focal points when strengthening security standards accurately. Existing literature has thoroughly probed the technical capabilities of VizSec tools. However, the broader organizational and environmental dimensions enabling efficient VizSec adoption and deployment have received relatively little academic attention. Addressing the research gap is thus essential for developing comprehensive, contextually-appropriate cybersecurity solutions.

Significance of Study

The technological organization study’s importance lies in its potential to enhance organizational robustness against digital attacks and advance cybersecurity practices; organizations would thus be more productive if they were not concerned with breaches in intellectual property and other kinds of intrusion that can have a tangible impact on their progress. Significantly, the research seeks to benefit cybersecurity professionals, business leaders, and government officials by illuminating the organizational and environmental factors impacting VizSec’s effectiveness.

Understanding these factors can help organizations determine when and how to deploy VizSec tools best to enhance their cybersecurity. The research examines factors like organizational culture, resource availability, and stakeholder awareness, which can influence the successful adoption of VizSec. Organizations will gain insight into tailoring cybersecurity strategies to meet their needs and challenges. The ability to customize cybersecurity procedures according to an organization’s distinct demands and obstacles necessitates comprehending the aspects that drive VizSec adoption. With cyber security knowledge, businesses can more effectively integrate VizSec technologies to reinforce their security measures.

First and foremost, businesses will gain from the research results as they can comprehend what they need to understand to optimize VizSec in their individuals, considering each business is distinctive (Andrade & Yoo, 2019). Thus, the strategies must be tailored to fit the Company’s requirements. The functionality of adjusting cybersecurity procedures to meet an establishment’s specific demands and obstacles necessitates knowledge of the aspects that propel the adoption of VizSec. These factors comprise organizational culture, resource accessibility, and stakeholder cognizance.

Furthermore, the research will aid in selecting and integrating suitable visualization tools by examining their technical aspects, such as compatibility, scalability, and usefulness. Since every firm has distinct needs, regularities, and scaling requirements, the chosen visualization tool should be capable of achieving predetermined targets. With visualization information, organizations can more effectively integrate VizSec technologies to reinforce their security measures and streamline their cybersecurity framework (Arora & Jain, 2021). The VizSec’s review also assures a comprehensive assessment of the components that interplay to ascertain VizSec’s efficacy utilizing a technology organization environment approach, encompassing all relevant considerations when implementing technological solutions.

The study will facilitate the choice and incorporation of appropriate visualization tools. The visualization tool choice is made by exploring technical aspects of VizSec, such as suitability, scalability, and utility. Since each organization is unique with different requirements, regularities, and scaling, the screening tool chosen should be able to achieve the established organization’s aims. With the data, businesses can better incorporate VizSec technologies to enhance security and fine-tune their cybersecurity framework (Arora & Jain, 2021). Additionally, the research ensures a comprehensive examination of the factors that work together to determine VizSec’s efficacy using a technology organization environment approach, encompassing all areas to be considered when adopting technological measures.

Research Objectives

The impact of technology on organizations study is to increase the effectiveness of cybersecurity visualizations and identify the critically essential factors related to the successful use of Visualization in cybersecurity from the organizational and environmental aspects. They include users’ factors as well. Hence, the aim is to test the effects of these factors on cybersecurity visualization and to discover how various factors such as user-centric design, cognitive knowledge, experiences, IT usage, and knowledge may individually or together impact the successful adoption of cybersecurity visualization. Use the Technology-Organization-Environment framework as a guiding framework to help ensure that all aspects are covered.

Literature Review

Cyberspace safety is a significant concern in today’s digital landscape, and practical visualization tools can help improve security operations. The literature review examines the factors that influence the success of cybersecurity data visualization applications, also known as VizSec, in an organizational setting. The technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework is used in the review to examine three key factors: compatibility, scalability, and functionality. Thus, the analysis seeks to gain different takes into how these factors influence the adoption and effectiveness of VizSec and to inform future research directions by exploring relevant research.

Technology

Compatibility

Compatibility refers to the degree to which a visualization device aligns with a business enterprise’s current technological infrastructure and requirements. McKenna, Staheli, and Meyer (2015) emphasize the importance of user-focused design practices in growing cybersecurity visualization equipment. By incorporating consumer necessities, layout opportunities, and concepts, organizations can ensure that the visualization tools are like-minded with their specific cybersecurity goals.

For example, the authors highlight the successful deployments of person-focused layout standards in cybersecurity visualization tasks, suggesting that comparable procedures can yield tremendous results in different corporations. For instance, a multinational corporation adopts a visualization tool that integrates seamlessly with its existing community infrastructure, permitting protection analysts to monitor and respond to potential cyber threats efficaciously. The compatibility ends in progressed cybersecurity outcomes and enhances the enterprise’s overall protection posture.

Scalability

Scalability refers to the capacity of a visualization tool to house the growing needs and complexities of a company’s cybersecurity environment. Liao, Striegel, and Chawla (2010) spotlight the restrictions of conventional network monitoring methods, which fail to offer comprehensive insights into dynamic employer networks. To address the issue, the authors advocate using visualization techniques, including ENAVis (employer community activities Visualization), to efficiently control and cozy company networks. By visualizing graph dynamics and similarity, community operators can benefit from more profound expertise in community activities and make knowledgeable choices to beautify security.

Say, a swiftly expanding generation startup implements a scalable visualization device that adapts to the organization’s evolving cybersecurity desires. The tool lets the organization screen and analyze community sports, enabling proactive risk detection and mitigation. The scalability of the visualization tool guarantees that it can handle the multiplied data extent and complexity related to the enterprise’s increase.

Functionality

Functionality refers to how much a visualization tool offers the necessary functions and talents to guide powerful cybersecurity operations. Mitchelle et al. (2020) emphasize the position of consumer-targeted design principles, together with qualitative coding, personas, and data sketches, in improving the functionality of cybersecurity visualization gear. Regarding quitting customers and incorporating their remarks into the layout manner, groups can create equipment that meets the precise requirements of cybersecurity analysts and improve basic functionality.

For example, a government enterprise develops a visualization device with qualitative coding and records sketches to enhance its cybersecurity operations. The device enables analysts to become aware of odd network activities and reach functionality protection breaches more effectively. The advanced functionality of the tool permits the agency to reply efficaciously to rising cyber threats and safeguard touchy records.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical Framework

The technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework guides the analysis of factors influencing VizSec adoption. Umeokafor. (2021) says that the TOE framework posits that technological adoption is influenced by three elements: technological context, organizational context, and environmental context.

The technological context involves internal and external technologies relevant to the firm, including current equipment, practices, and availability. The organizational context covers various internal resources and characteristics, such as firm size, managerial structure, and human resources. Finally, the environmental context pertains to the arena in which a firm conducts business, including industry, competitors, regulations, and relations with the government.

The technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework is used to examine factors influencing VizSec adoption. The TOE framework has been widely used in studies on technological innovation adoption, including e-business adoption, RFID adoption, and ERP adoption (Umeokafor et al., 2021). It provides a comprehensive model encompassing technical ions technological, organizational, and environmental contexts. The TOE framework is suitable for the literature review as it allows a holistic investigation of the various elements impacting VizSec implementation.

Conclusion

The literature overview has explored the connection between the era and the successful adoption of Visualization for cybersecurity. The findings highlight the importance of compatibility, scalability, and functionality in riding the adoption and effectiveness of visualization gear. Visualization gear can enhance cybersecurity operations by aligning with an agency’s technological infrastructure, accommodating growth and complexity, and supplying vital features. The insights won from the evaluation form the idea for the subsequent hypotheses: compatibility positively affects the success of VizSec adoption, scalability is a crucial driver of successful adoption, and functionality drastically affects the effectiveness of cybersecurity visualization equipment. In addition, studies are needed to validate those hypotheses and advantage a more profound know-how of the interplay between technology and a hit adoption of Visualization for cybersecurity.

Organization

Administrative Factors

Administrative factors, lifestyles, and shape complexity have been recognized as critical factors affecting an employer’s successful adoption of VizSec. Collen et al. (2022) emphasize simplifying complex protection information for non-technical customers through a person-centric layout. Their research specializes in creating a DRA-based total protection solution for laypeople in IoT-enabled settings, where individuals are most centered in cyber-attacks. Study observation aims to beautify usability and transparency by integrating human factors into visualization interfaces. Findings advise that tailoring cybersecurity answers to personal abilities and know-how improves the effectiveness of VizSec adoption.

In a case, Collen et al. (2022) advise a user interface design that aligns with users’ compatibility, wishes, and targets. To improve and customize visualization interfaces, they use surveys to measure end users’ technical expertise, cybersecurity cognizance, and privacy issues. Researchers demonstrate the evolution of visualization interfaces via real-world experiments, indicating the effectiveness of their approach in addressing cybersecurity-demanding situations in IoT settings. Collen et al. (2022) findings help speculate that organizational factors, especially in the organizational manner of lifestyles and form complexity, impact the successful adoption of VizSec.

Human Factors

Human factors additionally play a vast position in successful adoption of VizSec. Cognitive capabilities and expertise of visible representations were studied extensively within cybersecurity. Baker, Jones, and Burkman (2009) discover how visual terms of facts beautify sense-making in statistics exploration obligations. They categorize diverse visible pictures and emphasize the significance of accommodating human visual perceptual tactics, consisting of affiliation, differentiation, ordered belief, and quantitative notions. These representations facilitate identifying styles and inconsistencies in cybersecurity records, contributing to progressed decision-making.

Furthermore, Andrade and Yoo (2019) highlight cognitive factors of cybersecurity and advocate for complete information on cognitive technology inside the area. They argue that incorporating cognitive competencies into data visualization frameworks, including analogical reasoning and continental can decorate sensemaking and decrease cyber security risks. Those studies aid with the hypothesis that human factors, such as cognitive abilities and understanding of visual representations, affect hit adoption of VizSec.

Communication

Effective verbal exchange within an agency is vital for implementing a cybersecurity framework consisting of VizSec. Inner communication among departments ensures the easy go with the flow of facts, techniques, and necessities in cybersecurity (Rathee et al., 2019). Verbal exchange allows incident reporting, remarks, policy dissemination, and education, contributing to more suitable cybersecurity practices. Ewing, men, and O’Neil (2019) highlight the function of social media in engaging employees and enhancing inner communication. They argue that social media can increase employee information and education, increasing compliance with records security policies.

Similarly, Chatfield and Reddick (2019) propose a framework for IoT-enabled competent government that addresses cybersecurity guidelines and use cases. They emphasize the importance of verbal exchange in conveying rules, policies, and education associated with cybersecurity in the government sector. The research guides the hypothesis that stakeholder interest, such as effective communique practices, affects hit adoption of VizSec.

Conclusion

A literature review has explored the impact of organizational factors, human factors, and communique at hit adoption of VizSec. Reviewed studies offer proof assisting the hypothesis that organizational manner of life and shape complexity, stakeholder interest, and public focus play prominent roles in adopting VizSec. Consumer-centric layout, accommodating cognitive abilities, and robust verbal exchange are crucial in enhancing VizSec adoption.

In addition, studies are wanted to research the scalability and generalizability of consumer-centric tactics, explore VizSec adoption in one-of-a-kind organizational settings, and address broader organizational and environmental components influencing adoption. Via expertise and addressing these factors, companies can decorate their cybersecurity practices and efficiently leverage VizSec to mitigate the dangers of cyberattacks.

Environment

The Complexity of Statutory Regulatory Necessities

Statutory regulatory articulates thoughts on prison necessities and compliance requirements imposed on businesses to ensure cybersecurity. The complexity of those statutory requirements will poorly impact an organization’s hit adoption of VizSec. Previous studies with the aid of Rakotondravony and Harrison (n.d.) highlighted the discrepancies and opportunities between visualization research and practitioner workflows. To address it, they proposed an interview to perceive visualization gear and strategies that promise the most excellent success in cybersecurity.

For example, Rakotondravony and Harrison(n.d.) look at locating that organizational constraints and technical properties of novel visualization tools may also discourage adopting these practices through safety analysts. Studies emphasize the want for cybersecurity frameworks that can be consumer-pleasant for each technical expert and layperson. Via information that affects organizational requirements and targets, extent of knowledge of analysts, and technical configurations of visualization gear, businesses can bridge the gap between studies and practical implementation in cybersecurity settings.

Rising Cybersecurity Threats

The ever-evolving nature of cybersecurity threats and assault processes provides demanding situations for successfully adopting VizSec. As highlighted via hypothesis, these challenges are expected to have a destructive impact on organizations. Wanasinghe et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of virtual dual technologies for oil and fuel enterprises. Visualization performs an essential position in figuring out and addressing intrusions in databases. In addition, Wallace et al. (2021) mentioned a prolonged era-organization-surroundings framework for cybersecurity adoption decisions, which considers external factors like new cybersecurity dangers and attack strategies.

To illustrate, Liao, Striegel, and Chawla (2010) offered a visualization method for corporation network protection and management. Their studies centered on visualizing graph dynamics and similarity, permitting protection analysts to effectively hit upon anomalies and capacity threats. By leveraging visualization techniques that may adapt to emerging cybersecurity threats, agencies can decorate their defenses and enhance their adoption of VizSec practices.

Public Awareness

Public awareness plays an essential role in the successful adoption of VizSec practices. The hypothesis shows that public attention positively influences a company’s adoption of VizSec. Rathee, Sharma, Kumar, and Iqbal (2019) emphasized the importance of secure speaking things network frameworks for industrial IoT in the usage of the blockchain era. The blockchain takes a look at highlights a need to raise public consciousness about security risks associated with IoT gadgets and the functionality advantages of VizSec. Likewise, McKenna, Staheli, and Meyer (2015) explored user-targeted layout techniques for building cybersecurity visualizations. The researchers emphasized the significance of considering user needs and possibilities to ensure visualization equipment’s usability and popularity. By instructing the general public about cybersecurity dangers and promoting the advantages of VizSec, businesses can create supportive surroundings for successfully adopting visualization practices.

Conclusion

An organization environments fully affect the adoption of Visualization for protection (VizSec) practices. The complexity of statutory regulatory necessities, growing cybersecurity threats/attack procedures, and public awareness impact a company’s potential to adopt VizSec successfully. The literature evaluation has furnished numerous research insights, highlighting the importance of consumer-pleasant cybersecurity frameworks, visualization tools that adapt to emerging threats, and public focus campaigns. Via thinking about these factors and addressing the challenges within the surroundings, corporations can enhance their adoption of VizSec practices and improve their cybersecurity defenses.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Data Visualization in Cyber Security. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conceptual-framework-for-data-visualization_fig4_363687685

Research Gap

Most studies have focused on the technical aspects of visualization tools used in cybersecurity while failing to consider other organizational and environmental factors. Previous investigations into the challenges, recommendations, and improvement suggestions regarding cybersecurity data visualization. Previous studies have, however, mentioned specific dynamics that influence the technique’s effectiveness. Most studies have focused on the technical aspects of visualization tools used in cybersecurity while failing to consider other organizational and environmental factors. Thus far, conclusive evidence or demonstrations of data visualization efficacy has yet not been conclusive.

Research Questions and Hypothesis

Research Question

1. What are the key factors contributing to the effectiveness of cybersecurity data visualizations, and how can these factors be leveraged to create more impactful visualizations?
2. How do cognitive characteristics and visualization skills affect cybersecurity analysts’ ability to analyze and understand data visualizations?
3. How can non-technical stakeholders, including executives and decision-makers, be successfully informed about complex security risks and vulnerabilities via data visualizations?

Hypotheses

Since the review addresses Visualization in cyber security from a technology, organization, and environment approach (the TOE Framework), hypotheses are formulated based on the three aspects of the TOE. The drafted theory is represented as follows:

Technology

1. Compatibility affects a corporation’s successful adoption of VizSec.

2. Scalability positively affects an organization’s successful adoption of VizSec.
3. Functionality impacts a corporation’s successful adoption of VizSec.

Organization

1. Organizational way of life and shape complexity negatively influences an employer’s successful adoption of VizSec.

1. Stakeholder attention undoubtedly affects an agency’s successful adoption of VizSec.

3. Public consciousness undoubtedly affects a corporation’s successful adoption of VizSec.

Environment

1. Statutory regulatory necessities complexity negatively influences a company’s successful adoption of VizSec.
2. Rising cybersecurity threats/assault approaches negatively influence an organization’s a success adoption of VizSec.

1. Public awareness positively affects an organization’s successful adoption of VizSec.

Methodology

Sampling Strategy and Population

The quantitative research approach is adopted to determine what characteristics affect the efficacy of cybersecurity data visualizations. The data is gathered from at least a hundred cybersecurity specialists working on cybersecurity data visualization in their respective organizations. The study will use online surveys designed using the Microsoft Online Forms platform (https://forms.office.com/) to collect top-quality and reliable first-hand raw data for the research. The surveys are designed to allow the respondents to categorize their organization in terms of success in VIzSec adoption (Successful or Unsuccessful).

The survey questions are derived from established instruments measuring TOE factors in prior technology adoption studies. Some modifications were made to tailor the items specifically to VizSec adoption. The leverages validated measures while adapting them to the current research context. The respondent will also rate how various variables under the TOE Framework affect an organization’s successful adoption of VizSec. Therefore, online surveys will be used by engaging at least a hundred cybersecurity experts working in various organizations’ cybersecurity data visualization sections to obtain the raw data for literature analysis.

Sampling Method

Variable Definition

The research hypotheses guided the selection of study variables for the VizSec case. The research was designed to assess the impact of various Technology-Organization-Environment Framework components on the successful adoption of VizSec in an organization. Therefore, these TOE Framework factors will act as independent variables in the technological exploration, while the successful adoption of VizSec is its dependent variable. The table below lists the independent variables and their corresponding TOE Framework element. In conclusion, the paper’s variables were derived from the research hypotheses; whereas only one dependent variable (VS) exists, nine independent variables are obtained from components under each TOE Framework element.

Table 1: Study Variables

Variable Coding and Quantification

The variables’ coding will aid in quantifying the variables for Logistic Regression analysis. In order to assign codes for the possible outcomes, two categories were created: one for the dependent variable and another for the independent variables, including both scale and grouping variables. For instance, regarding the dependent variable, two outcomes are possible: a company could either be successful or unsuccessful in adopting VizSec and hence these results have been coded as 1 for unsuccessful and 2 for successful. Additionally, scale variables such as Stakeholder Awareness can include three different outcomes: low, moderate, or high, respectively, assigned values 1-3 (as presented in Table 1). The scalability factor includes a 10-point Likert scale where one is provided as the lowest rating while ten stands at the highest score; thus, such coding will be instrumental in quantifying the framework’s variables which consequently formulates a dataset from survey results.

Analysis Plan

Data Analysis and Visualization Tools and Methods

The research will utilize SPSS for the necessary statistical analysis, including computing descriptive statistics and Logistic Regression. Furthermore, visualization methods such as pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, and box plots will display frequencies and distribution/normality. The quantitative analysis aims to identify the essential aspects of data visualization regarding cybersecurity so that more effective visualizations can be created.

Statistical Testing: Logistic Regression

Logistic Regression analysis will be conducted to evaluate hypotheses statistically. The method used must assess the correlation between nine independent and dependent variables. Logistic Regression has been used in similar studies on technology adoption (Oliveira & Martins, 2010), thus proving beneficial in testing the hypotheses and pursuing the aim. Moreover, the type of dependent variable determines the choice of analysis tools; Logistic Regression is reliable for modeling binary dependent variables (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, logistic analysis was deemed most appropriate for cyber security modification, allowing us to test the hypotheses effectively.

Logistic Regression produces several outcomes and statistics, but the primary focus is on the Coefficient, Significance Statistic (P-Value), and 95% Confidence Interval. The P-Value and 95% Confidence Interval will be instrumental in assessing the statistical significance of the Correlation Coefficient. According to an alpha value of 0.05, a P-Value lower than 0.05 denotes statistical significance, indicating that the independent variable significantly affects the dependent variable (Bevans, 2020). Conversely, if the P-Value is higher than 0.05, it suggests statistical insignificance; thus, suggesting that the respective independent variable does not influence the dependent variable.

Once the statistical significance is determined using the P-Value, the coefficient will determine when the relationship between independent variable and other variables is negative or positive. A positive regression coefficient indicates that the respective independent variable positively affects the dependent variable (Bevans, 2020). In contrast, a negative coefficient implies that the independent variable affects the dependent variable negatively. Therefore, three Logistic Regression outcomes will sufficiently inform the findings and conclusion of the organizational review.

Conclusion

The literature intends to investigate why cybersecurity data visualizations are so powerful and how data variables may be used to improve future visualizations in cybersecurity. Surveys are used to collect the raw data from the selected participants, who are experienced cybersecurity experts, especially those working in their respective firms’ cybersecurity data visualization departments. Statistical analyses (Logistic Regression) test the relationship between the settled independent and dependent variables. Selecting participants randomly reduces biases regarding one’s viewpoint or set of experiences, thus increasing the accuracy of collected data. In summary, the appraisal potentially expands visual analytics approaches for better cyber threat identification and management. With improved cyber security, optimizing data visualization procedures is enlightened in the information technological arena. Organizations may improve their cyber defense capabilities by understanding the aspects contributing to good cybersecurity data visualizations.

References

Andrade, R. O., & Yoo, S. G. (2019). Cognitive security: A comprehensive study of cognitive science in cybersecurity. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 48, 102352.

Augusto-Gonzalez, J., Collen, A., Evangelatos, S., Anagnostopoulos, M., Spathoulas, G., Giannoutakis, K. M., … & Nijdam, N. A. (2019, September). From the Internet of Threats to the Internet of Things: A cyber security Architecture for intelligent homes. In 2019 IEEE 24th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

Baker, J., Jones, D., & Burkman, J. (2009). Using visual representations of data to enhance sensemaking in data exploration tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(7), 2.

Collen, A., Szanto, I. C., Benyahya, M., Genge, B., & Nijdam, N. A. (2022). Integrating Human Factors in the Visualisation of Usable Transparency for Dynamic Risk Assessment. Information, 13(7), 340.

Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2019). A framework for Internet of Things-enabled competent government: A case of IoT cybersecurity policies and use cases in US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 346–357.

D’Arcy, J., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). Cognitive‐affective drivers of employees’ daily compliance with information security policies: A multilevel, longitudinal study. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 43–69.

Ewing, M., Men, L. R., & O’Neil, J. (2019). Using social media to engage employees: Insights from internal communication managers. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(2), 110–132.

Ji, S. Y., Jeong, B. K., & Jeong, D. H. (2021). Evaluating visualization approaches to detect abnormal activities in network traffic data. International Journal of Information Security, 20, 331-345.

Koo, K., Moon, D., Huh, J. H., Jung, S. H., & Lee, H. (2022). Attack Graph Generation with Machine Learning for Network Security. Electronics, 11(9), 1332.

Mitchell, L. L., Peterson, C. M., Rud, S. R., Jutkowitz, E., Sarkinen, A., Trost, S., … & Gaugler, J. E. (2020). “It’s like a cyber-security blanket”: The utility of remote activity monitoring in family dementia care. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(1), 86-98.

Rakotondravony, N., & Harrison, L. Visualization for Cyber Security and Security Analysts’ Use of Visualizations: Is There a Gap?

Rathee, G., Sharma, A., Kumar, R., & Iqbal, R. (2019). A secure communicating things network framework for industrial IoT using blockchain technology. Ad Hoc Networks, 94, 101933.

Umeokafor, N., Isaac, D., Jones, K., & Umeadi, B. (2021). Diffusion of blockchain technology adoption in construction organizations: A qualitative comparative analysis of contextual factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120632

Ullah, F., Qayyum, S., Thaheem, M. J., Al-Turjman, F., & Sepasgozar, S. M. (2021). Risk management in sustainable smart cities governance: A TOE framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120743.

Wanasinghe, T. R., Wroblewski, L., Petersen, B. K., Gosine, R. G., James, L. A., De Silva, O., … & Warrian, P. J. (2020). Digital twin for the oil and gas industry: Overview, research trends, opportunities, and challenges. IEEE Access, 8, 104175–104197.

Wallace, S., Green, K., Johnson, C., Cooper, J., & Gilstrap, C. (2021). An Extended TOE Framework for Cybersecurity Adoption Decisions. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 47(2020), 51.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2010). Understanding e-business adoption across industries in European countries. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(9), 1337e1354.

Liao, Q., Striegel, A., & Chawla, N. (2010, September). Visualizing graph dynamics and similarity for enterprise network security and management. In Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on Visualization for cyber security (pp. 34-45).

Gates, C., & Engle, S. (2013, June). Reflecting on Visualization for Cyber security. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 275–277). IEEE.

McKenna, S., Staheli, D., & Meyer, M. (2015, October). Unlocking user-centered design methods for building cyber security visualizations. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security (VizSec) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

Bevans, R. (2020, July 16). Understanding P-values | Definition and Examples. Retrieved July 10, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/: https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/p-value/#:~:text=The%20p%2Dvalue%20only%20tells,your%20alternative%20hypothesis%20is%20true.

Arora, P., & Jain, A. (2021, December). Cyber Security Threats And Their Solutions Through Deep Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking (ICAC3N) (pp. 1944-1949). IEEE.

Lalena, D. J., & Feinauer, D. M. (2023, April). Applying Display Design Principles to Organizational Cybersecurity to Create Effective Visualizations and Dashboards. In SoutheastCon 2023 (pp. 477-484). IEEE.

Appendix

Appendix 1: The Interview Questions

VizSec Research Survey

Hello!

I am investigating the factors that affect the success of cybersecurity data visualization applications (VizSec) within an organizational context: A technology-organization-environment framework. The survey only focuses on the success of implementing VizSec, and various factors that affect its success. No personal details will be collected, and the information you provide here will be treated with at most confidentiality.

Thank you for your participation.

1. Would you say that your Company has successfully adopted VizSec: (1: No, 2: Yes)
2. How would you describe your organization’s VizSec technology/system Compatibility with other cybersecurity and ICT systems? (1= Incompatible, 2: Compatible)
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, where one is the lowest and 10 is the highest rate, how would you rate your organization’s VizSec technology/system Scalability?
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, where one is the lowest and 10 is the highest rate, how would you rate your organization’s VizSec technology/system Functionality?
5. How would you describe your organization’s Organizational Culture and Structure Complexity? (Hint: Think of aspects like Decision-Making Channels and Processes) (1: Complex 2: Simple)
6. How would you describe your organization’s Stakeholder Awareness of VizSec and Cybersecurity in general? (1: Low, 2: Moderate, 3: High)
7. How would you describe your organization’s resource availability, especially resources for VizSec Adoption? (1: Scarce, 2: Adequate)
8. How would you describe the contemporary Statutory/Regulatory Requirement Complexity? Focusing on o the regulations relating to VizSec and Cybersecurity in general. (1: Complex, 2 Simple)
9. On the same scale as in No. 3 and 4 above, how would you rate the Contemporary Emergency of New Cybersecurity Threats/Attack Tactics?
10. How would you describe the contemporary Public Awareness of VizSec and Cybersecurity in general? (1: Low, 2: Moderate, 3: High)