Marketing capability and growth · Abstract-supported quantitative empirical study
Cybersecurity management: an empirical analysis of dynamic capabilities framework for enhancing cybersecurity intelligence
Angelica Pigola, Priscila Rezende da Costa (2025). Information and Computer Security.
Plain-English take
“Doing” and “improving” dimensions were positively associated with cybersecurity intelligence; “enabling” and “managing” dimensions did not make significant contributions. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.
How much weight to give this
3/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.
The reviewed source reports a sample or corpus size (207); size alone does not establish representativeness.
The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.
Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.
Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.
Research question
What the authors investigated
Which dynamic capabilities contribute to organizational cybersecurity intelligence?
Design
Develops a dynamic-capabilities-in-cybersecurity framework and tests it with hierarchical regression.
Sample and setting
207 cybersecurity experts across diverse regions.
Reported result
What the study found
“Doing” and “improving” dimensions were positively associated with cybersecurity intelligence; “enabling” and “managing” dimensions did not make significant contributions.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The accessible abstract does not state detailed limitations; expert self-report and cross-sectional regression design warrant editorial review.
Possible founder application
Treat this as evidence for the specific marketing capability and growth question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.
Evidence access
Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved; full text not reviewed
Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.