Managing information security risks during new technology adoption

Abstract

In the present study, we draw on previous system dynamics research on operational transition and change of vulnerability to investigate the role of incident response capability in controlling the severity of incidents during the adoption of new technology.Towards this end, we build a system dynamics model using the Norwegian Oil and Gas Industry as the context. The Norwegian Oil and Gas Industry has started to adopt new information communication technology to connect its offshore platforms, onshore control centers, and suppliers. In oil companies, the management is generally aware of the increasing risks associated with operational transition; however, to date, investment in incident response capability has not been highly prioritized because of the uncertainty related to risks and the present reactive mental model of security risk management. The model simulation shows that a reactive approach to security risk management might trap the organization into blindness to minor incidents and low incident response capability, which can lead to severe incidents. The system dynamics model can serve as a means to promote proactive investment in incident response capability.

Implementing Vertical Integration in the Industry 4.0 Journey: Which Factors Influence the Process of Information Systems Adoption?

“…These factors consider operational concerns companies may have for the implementation of the technological solution. Cybersecurity was already observed in the literature as a factor limiting firms’ willingness to advance in the vertical integration of systems because of concerns about being hacked and suffering impacts on their production activities (Qian et al, 2012 ). Furthermore, functionalities and platform issues must be constantly managed by companies to ensure that the information system will operate correctly (Jain & Bhattacharyya, 2012 ).…”

A A Conceptual Framework Integration of UTAUT and HBM on Evaluating the Adoption of Electronic Payment System in Malaysia

“…As evident in today's global pandemic, evaluating the adoption of technology in relation to perceived health risk by technology users requires more contribution due to the persisting low number of studies published to date and in view of the importance of the topic (Mustafaoğlu et al, 2018). The most often used adoption models when studying risk adoption by electronic payment users are the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Faqih, 2011;Im, Kim, & Han, 2008;Kansal, 2016;Qian, Fang, & Gonzalez, 2012). Based on previous studies conducted in the field of consumer health information technology adoption, most of the research studies use TAM or extensions of TAM (Wilson & Lankton, 2004).…”

A Holistic View on Organizational IT Security: The Influence of Contextual Aspects During IT Security Decisions

“…This is also reflected by the slight surplus of predominantly normative studies (56%) based on mathematical modelling (64% proportionately) [2,6,10,33,34,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Whereas two studies pursue a purely qualitative approach [20,55] and six are purely conceptual [56][57][58][59][60][61], eleven studies employ a combination of several approaches [4,14,33,35,37,39,40,41,48,51,62] and three are based on panel data [3,31,63]. As already indicated, our search strategy was directed at studies that explicitly focus on the actual (investment) decision, i.e., phase 4 in Straub and Welke's risk planning model [14].…”

“…The investment nuances that are most often considered in these specific investment studies, but also in publications that pursue a more generic approach, are the specific area or content and the optimal level of investment [4,10,33,34,47,53,56,60,62]. Only a single study is dedicated towards to the decision regarding the source or origin of the investment [48] and a total of six studies consider the fundamental decision whether to invest at all [31,38,44,47,54,55].…”