INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8763
A Comparative Study on Home Network Management Tools
Erman Hamid
1
, Gracy Wan
1
, Norharyati Harum
1
, Nazrulazhar Bahaman
1
, Nurul Azma Zakaria
1
,
Akhdiat Abdul Malek
2
1
Fakulti Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Major Language Study, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia,Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000714
Received: 29 October 2025; Accepted: 03 November 2025; Published: 21 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Home Network Management plays a critical role in maintaining and optimizing residential computer networks,
which have grown increasingly complex due to the proliferation of connected devices. The effectiveness of
these tools largely depends on user-friendly interfaces that enhance usability and support efficient network
practices. However, many users lack the technical knowledge required to navigate these tools effectively, often
resulting in suboptimal network performance. This study addresses usability challenges in home network
management tools by adopting a mixed-method approach that integrates Content Analysis with the System
Usability Scale (SUS) to provide a comprehensive evaluation of their functionality and user experience.
Keywords— home network, network management, comparative study, usability evaluation, system usability
scale (SUS).
INTRODUCTION
Home Network Management involves overseeing and controlling a residential computer network, including
devices and infrastructure. It shares similarities with professional network administration, focusing on
configuration, access control, security, monitoring, and maintenance. The goal is to optimize network usage,
ensure continuous connectivity, and enhance user experience.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a combined approach using Content Analysis and the System Usability Scale (SUS) to
evaluate issues in home network management tools. Content Analysis enables systematic identification and
categorization of tool features and usability issues, while SUS offers a quantitative measure of user satisfaction
and perceived usability [1][2]. By integrating the strengths of both methods, this mixed-method design
provides a more holistic and nuanced understanding of user experience and system functionality. Previous
research supports that such combinations yield actionable insights for improving software interfaces and
usability outcomes [3][4].
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a widely validated tool for evaluating perceived usability across software
domains, including network management applications [5][6][7]. In this study, SUS was used to assess user
satisfaction, interface clarity, and task efficiency based on direct interaction with the selected tools.
Integrating findings from Content Analysis and Usability Study offers a holistic understanding of both content
quality and user experience. Aligning insights from these methodologies aids in refining and enhancing the
design of educational tools, thereby improving their effectiveness and user-friendliness. This approach not only
identifies critical usability issues but also validates them through direct user feedback, ensuring that the
findings are robust and applicable to real-world scenarios [3][8][9].
Content Analysis
Content Analysis is used to systematically review and categorize existing research on home network
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8764
management tools. This technique involves a detailed examination of selected studies to identify key issues,
features, and limitations associated with these tools. The process (refer Figure 1) includes:
Literature Review: Conducting a comprehensive review of relevant articles to gather data on home network
management tools. The review focuses on features such as device identification, connection control, user
interfaces, and automation [1].
Categorization: Analyzing the content to categorize findings into different themes related to tool
functionalities and user experience. This step involves identifying recurring issues and strengths across various
studies [1].[2].
Synthesis: Synthesizing the categorized information to draw meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness
and limitations of current home network management tools [10].
Fig. 1 Content Analysis Workflow: From Literature Review to Synthesis
Usability Study
To complement the Content Analysis, a usability study is conducted using the System Usability Scale (SUS),
developed by Brooke [6]. SUS is a widely used tool for assessing the usability of various systems, including
software and hardware tools. This evaluation provides a quantitative measure of user satisfaction and tool
effectiveness Figure 2 shows the process of usability study.
Fig. 2 Workflow of Quantitative Measurement Using SUS
Survey Design: A SUS-based questionnaire is designed to evaluate user experience with selected home
network management tools. The questionnaire includes ten questions that cover aspects such as ease of use,
learning curve, and user satisfaction [5][7].
Participant Selection: A diverse group of over 50 participants is selected, representing various levels of
technical expertise. Participants must be drawn from multiple studies, ensuring a broad range of user
perspectives [3].
Data Collection: Participants complete the SUS questionnaire after using the home network management
tools. The collected data is analyzed to identify trends in user satisfaction and usability issues [3][11].
Integration with Content Analysis: The findings from the SUS evaluation are integrated with the results of
the Content Analysis. This combined approach (refer Figure 3) helps validate the issues identified in the
Content Analysis with user feedback on usability [12].
Fig. 3 Integrated Workflow of Content Analysis and Usability Evaluation
Categorization
Synthesis
Survey
Design
Participant
Selection
Data
Collection
Content
Analysis
-Literature Review
-Categorization
-Synthesis
Usability
Evaluation
-Survey Design
-Participant Selection
-Data Collection
-Integration
Integration
of Result
-Content Analysis Findings
-SUS Findings
-Combined Insights
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8765
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section explores the efficacy and roles of various home network management tools and their usability as
analyzed from previous research. The discussion is divided into three key areas: (1) Tools and The Roles, (2)
Identified Issues, and (3) Usability Study.
Tools and Roles
Effective home network management involves identifying and addressing problems that occur during network
operation. These challenges can range from software bugs and hardware malfunctions to uncertainties in usage
and insufficient documentation. The resolution of these issues is crucial for improving network management
and performance [11][12][13].
Addressing the Core Issues
Home network management encounters significant challenges due to the limited feature sets of existing tools.
These tools can be overly complex for some users while insufficient for others.
Many tools lack essential functionalities such as monitoring, blocking, website filtering, scheduling, and both
automated and manual connection management, underscoring the need for more comprehensive solutions
[3][14] [15]. Current tools often cater to network professionals, which can be intimidating for non-experts.
Effective home network management tools should be user-friendly and accessible to individuals with varying
technical expertise [16][10].
Cost is another critical factor, as high-quality tools are frequently expensive and may require additional
purchases for full functionality. This often forces users to settle for basic packages that lack vital features,
impeding their ability to establish a secure network [17]. Affordable tools that provide a balanced range of
features without extra costs are necessary.
Furthermore, many tools are limited to basic tasks and lack advanced features, such as detailed device
information, that could enhance network management capabilities [18].
Physical limitations, such as insufficient memory and processing power, also affect tool performance,
highlighting the need for reasonably priced options with adequate specifications [3][19].
Automation is also crucial; many tools require manual input of network information, which can lead to errors
and complicates management for non-experts. Tools with automated functions would improve usability and
accuracy across all skill levels [20][21].
Battery consumption is a practical concern for mobile tools; excessive battery drain can reduce their usability,
necessitating adherence to battery-saving practices [22][10][23].
Security is paramount, as some tools expose sensitive network usage data. Proper security measures should
limit access to authorized individuals only [24][25]. Finally, a user-friendly interface is essential for effective
network management, providing intuitive navigation and efficient access to features [16][20].
Review of Existing Tools
An analysis of over 25 home network management tools (refer Figure 4) highlights their distinct roles and
functionalities, categorized into four main areas: security control [22][3], technical management [26], network
monitoring [27], and network support [28].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8766
Fig. 4 Distribution of Home Network Management Features by Category
For instance, security solutions such as those offered by Trend Micro integrate with home Wi-Fi routers
through Ethernet and support both Android and iOS platforms, providing comprehensive network traffic
scanning to prevent intrusions and enhance privacy [29] [30]. Similarly, the home network tools described by
"Eden and Yang" offers extensive functionalities for user access control, traffic monitoring, and Quality of
Service (QoS) management, featuring a user-friendly interface for effective network oversight [22][17].
Arcai’s "NetCut" [31] focuses on defending devices from spoofing attacks while maintaining network
performance, utilizing WinPcap for private network management and peak time monitoring. Cisco Systems
Inc.'s "Cisco Network Magic" [17][14] and Chetty’s "uCap" [32] both provide a range of features including
security alerts, troubleshooting, and real-time traffic control, with user interfaces catering to various technical
skill levels.
The "Home Network Assistant (HNA)" combines monitoring, management, and understanding of network
behavior through dynamic HTML5 interfaces [33]. TuxCut (Blandford et al., 2016), an open-source tool,
protects Linux computers from spoofing with a straightforward interface for effective security management
[34]
Russell C.’s "Third-Party Customization of Residential Internet Sharing using SDN" emphasizes customization
and monitoring of Internet sharing with household quotas and age-based filtering [35]. Mortier’s "Homework"
offers interactive features for network infrastructure management, including DNS integration and device-
specific access control [36].
"Spyrix Personal Monitoring" provides extensive monitoring of network and social media activities [37], while
“Distributed IP Mobility Management (DMM)" simplifies smart device management [38]. "Angry IP Scanner"
delivers detailed information about online devices through various scanning techniques [39]. Collectively,
these tools offer diverse functionalities addressing various aspects of network management to meet varied user
needs and preferences.
"PingTest.net" and "SpeedTest.net" are online tools that evaluate network performance. PingTest.net measures
network latency and packet loss, providing insights into connection stability and quality. SpeedTest.net
assesses internet speed by testing download and upload rates. Together, these tools offer a comprehensive view
of network performance, helping users diagnose issues and optimize their connections for better efficiency
[40].
"Axence NetTools" is a comprehensive network management and diagnostic tool that offers various features
such as network scanning, monitoring, and troubleshooting. It enables users to efficiently manage network
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8767
resources, detect issues, and enhance overall network performance. The tool's user-friendly interface and
robust functionality make it a valuable asset for network administrators aiming to maintain secure and
optimized networks [40].
"Netscan" is a network scanning tool that identifies devices and services on a network. It helps users detect
potential security vulnerabilities, manage network resources, and optimize performance. By providing a
comprehensive overview of the network, Netscan simplifies network management and enhances security
measures [41]. "NetWorx" specializes in bandwidth monitoring, offering clear insights into network usage and
performance to help users address bottlenecks and optimize connectivity [40].
CEBus is a home automation protocol that standardizes communication between devices, making it easier to
integrate and control various systems in a home [42]. Cisco NetFlow analyzes network traffic, providing
detailed insights into usage and performance to help manage and optimize the network [43]. Together, they
enhance both home automation and network management, offering improved control and efficiency in their
respective domains. Their combined use can lead to more streamlined operations and better overall system
performance.
"OPNET" and "NS2" are important network simulation tools utilized for analyzing and optimizing network
performance. OPNET is widely used in industry due to its detailed simulations and capabilities for network
design and evaluation [44]. Conversely, NS2 is often favored in academic research for modeling and analyzing
network protocols and behaviors [44]. Both tools play crucial roles in enhancing network design and
performance.
"Wireshark" is a leading network protocol analyzer that captures and inspects traffic in real-time, providing
detailed data for diagnosing network issues and troubleshooting connectivity problems [45]. "SolarWinds
Network Performance Monitor" offers comprehensive network performance monitoring with advanced
analytics, customizable dashboards, and real-time alerts, helping users manage network health and efficiency
[46].
"MOTE-VIEW" is a tool for monitoring wireless sensor networks. It lets users track data and system
performance in real time from a distance, making network management easier. The simple interface helps users
manage and use the network more effectively [47]. "Ubiquiti UniFi" offers scalable network management for
home and small office environments, with features for centralized management, flexible deployment, and
performance optimization [48].
"NetSpot" is a Wi-Fi analyzer and site survey tool that helps optimize wireless network performance by
providing visual maps and analysis of signal strength and interference, ensuring stable and efficient wireless
coverage [49]. "ManageEngine OpManager" provides network monitoring and management with customizable
dashboards and advanced alerting systems, offering real-time insights into network health and performance
[50].
The range of network management tools discussed offers a variety of functionalities to enhance network
usability, performance and security. Tools like Trend Micro and NetCut provide strong protection and network
efficiency, while Cisco Network Magic and uCap offer real-time traffic management and troubleshooting.
Performance evaluation tools such as PingTest.net, SpeedTest.net, and Wireshark help diagnose and optimize
network issues. Additionally, network management solutions like Axence NetTools and Netscan improve
network oversight and security. The integration of home automation protocols such as CEBus with traffic
analysis tools like Cisco NetFlow demonstrates how these technologies can work together to streamline
network and system management. Overall, these tools collectively enhance network control, performance, and
security to meet diverse user needs.
Table I below summarizes the comparative strengths, limitations, and usability characteristics of selected home
network management tools evaluated in this study. The tools are assessed based on their key features, user
accessibility, and suitability for different user profiles.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8768
Table I Comparative Usability and Feature Analysis of Home Network Management Tools.
Tool
Key Feature
Usability Aspect
Strength
Limitation
NetCut
ARP protection,
spoofing defense
Medium
Simple interface,
device defense
No automation,
limited features
Cisco Network
Magic
Traffic control,
troubleshooting
High
Intuitive UI,
comprehensive tools
Paid version for full
features
Spyrix
Monitoring and
parental control
Low
Detailed logging
High battery
consumption
uCap
Internet data
management
Medium
Usage caps, quota
setting
Limited to
bandwidth
Home Network
Assistant
Monitoring +
diagnostics
Medium
Dynamic UI, network
insights
Limited platform
support
TuxCut
Linux spoofing
protection
High
Open-source,
lightweight
Linux-only
Eden
User access
control, QoS
High
Comprehensive
control
May be complex for
non-tech users
NetSpot
Wi-Fi analyzer
with heat maps
Medium
Visualization of
signal strength
Needs manual
interpretation
Angry IP
Scanner
Device detection
and scan
High
Fast device
identification
Basic interface
Manage Engine
OpManager
Real-time
monitoring, alerts
Low
Dashboard
customization
Enterprise-oriented
Wireshark
Real-time packet
capture
Low
Deep diagnostics
Complex for average
users
Axence
NetTools
Troubleshooting
suite
High
Multi-tool integration
Advanced users only
SpeedTest.net
Speed test
(upload/download
)
High
Easy to use, quick
Limited to speed
only
CEBus
Home automation
protocol
Medium
Integration-ready
Needs compatible
devices
The Issues
Effective home network management requires diagnosing and addressing issues such as bugs,
software/hardware uncertainties, or inadequate documentation [10][17][12]. Understanding these problems
allows for the development of solutions that improve network management and performance.
A major challenge is the lack of essential management features in existing tools. Many tools fall short in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8769
providing critical functionalities like monitoring, blocking, website filtering, scheduling, and connection
management, which are vital for effective home network control[17][51]. Addressing these gaps is crucial for
enabling users to manage their networks more efficiently.
Most current tools are designed with advanced features suited for network experts, making them complex for
non-technical users. An ideal home network management tool should offer basic, user-friendly functionalities
accessible to individuals regardless of their technical expertise [52].
Cost also plays a significant role. High-quality tools often come with high price tags and may require
additional purchases for full functionality, limiting access for budget-conscious users. This financial constraint
often leads to the use of basic packages that lack essential features, impairing the establishment of a secure and
comprehensive network setup [17].
Many available tools are limited to basic functions and lack advanced features that could enhance network
management. For example, they may not provide detailed information about connected devices, hindering
users' ability to optimize network management [53][54].
Additionally, many budget tools suffer from physical limitations such as insufficient memory and processing
power, resulting in slow performance and inefficiency. Therefore, affordable tools must also meet adequate
performance standards [55][56].
Automated functions are often missing, requiring manual input of network information, which can lead to
errors and complicate management for non-experts. Incorporating automation would significantly improve
usability and accuracy for all users [57][58].
Battery consumption is another concern for mobile tools. Tools that excessively drain battery power due to
frequent network activity may be uninstalled by users. Adhering to battery-saving practices or reducing
network request frequency can enhance power efficiency and user experience [59][60][56].
Security risks arise when tools allow unrestricted access to network usage logs. Proper security measures
should restrict access to sensitive data to authorized individuals only, ensuring the protection of user privacy
[61][62][63].
A user-friendly interface is essential for effective tool usage. The interfaces should be intuitive, easy to
navigate, and provide efficient access to features, making the tools more accessible and functional for users
[64][58].
Table II Mapping of Usability Issues to SUS Aspects and Their Impact on User Experience
Item
SUS Aspect
Explanation
Diagnosing
issues
Ease of Use
The ability of users to easily identify and resolve problems affects the
perceived ease oDf use and overall satisfaction with the tool.
Essential
management
features
Functionality
The presence and effectiveness of key functionalities contribute to the
tool's usability and whether it meets user needs.
Advanced
features for
network
experts
Functionality
Tools lacking advanced features and detailed information may not meet
user expectations and requirements for effective network management.
Physical
limitations
Performance
The tool's performance in terms of speed and efficiency impacts usability
and user experience.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8770
Overall, these challenges underscore the need for advanced home network management tools, as summarized
in Table II. A usability review was conducted with selected respondents to assess the effectiveness of existing
home network management tools. Addressing these challenges will facilitate the creation of tools that better
fulfill the diverse needs of users, thereby improving home network management across various demographics.
Result of the Usability Study
This section outlines the usability study process using the System Usability Scale (SUS), developed by John
Brooke [5][7], conducted on selected Home Network Management Tools to evaluate usability. A diverse group
of participants—varying in age, race, education, and profession—was involved to ensure a comprehensive
assessment of user interactions. The SUS questionnaire consisted of 10 items, each measuring different aspects
of usability, rated on a 5-point Likert scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree." Table III
summarizes the responses from 25 respondents.
Table III Response Distribution for Each SUS Item in the Usability Evaluation
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly Agree
0
1
0
6
0
2
0
5
0
3
Disagree
10
3
12
10
4
11
8
10
7
12
Neutral
5
7
6
7
5
6
7
8
5
6
Agree
8
11
5
1
12
5
10
1
9
3
Strongly Agree
2
3
2
1
4
1
0
1
4
1
The SUS score is calculated by adjusting the scores for each item and summing these adjusted scores. For odd-
numbered questions, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the user’s rating. For even-numbered
questions, the score is calculated by subtracting the user’s rating from 5. The adjusted scores are then summed
and multiplied by 2.5 to obtain a score out of 100. Table IV summarizes the average responses, adjusted
scores, and interpretations for each SUS question.
Table IV Average Scores and Interpretations for Each SUS Item
Question
AverageResponse
Adjusted Score
Interpretation
1
2.68
1.68
Some users found the system somewhat difficult to use.
2
3.56
1.44
Some users found the system somewhat complex.
Automated
functions
Ease of Use
Lack of automation can complicate use and lead to errors, affecting the
ease of use and overall satisfaction with the tool.
Battery
consumption
Efficiency
Tools that drain battery quickly affect usability, as users seek efficient
solutions that do not impact device performance negatively.
Security risks
Security and
Privacy
Proper security measures to protect sensitive data enhance user trust and
satisfaction, impacting overall usability.
User-friendly
interface
Ease of Use
An intuitive and easy-to-navigate interface significantly improves usability
and user satisfaction.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8771
3
2.88
1.88
Users felt that the system could be more intuitive.
4
2.56
2.44
Some users experienced inconsistency in the system.
5
3.36
1.64
Users believe the system requires a learning curve.
6
3.04
1.96
Some users felt the system was slightly cumbersome.
7
2.48
2.52
Users were not entirely confident using the system.
8
3.28
1.72
Some users felt the system was not easy to master.
9
3.32
1.68
Users found that the system's functions could be better
integrated.
10
2.56
2.44
Some users found inconsistencies in the system.
To validate the SUS findings statistically, we computed the average score across all respondents. The mean
SUS score was **50.42 ± 10.85 (SD)**, which falls significantly below the industry benchmark of 68 for
acceptable usability. The 95% confidence interval for the SUS score was **[46.16, 54.67]**, indicating with
high certainty that user perceptions of usability were consistently low to marginal. These results highlight the
necessity for substantial improvements in interface design, consistency, and user-friendliness.
The overall SUS score is calculated by summing the adjusted scores for each question and multiplying by 2.5
to obtain a score out of 100. A score above 68 suggests the system is generally usable and meets user
expectations, while scores below 68 indicate potential areas for improvement. User feedback revealed strengths
and weaknesses in the system, particularly regarding ease of learning, complexity, and function integration.
The SUS evaluation indicates that while the system is generally usable, further refinement is needed, especially
in addressing complexity and improving consistency.
Visual Summary of Usability-Solution Mapping
The following table summarizes how specific usability issues, identified via SUS and content analysis,
correspond to design challenges and lead to actionable feature suggestions. This mapping provides a high-level
framework for tool developers to align usability problems with targeted solutions.
TABLE V Usability Issue Mapping to Design Challenges and Interface Solutions
Usability Issue
Design Challenge
Suggested Feature
Manual setup
High error rate
Auto-detection of devices
Unclear terminoloy
Misintrepretation by users
Tooltips and user guidance
Cluttered interface
Visual incostency
Minimalist UI design
Low SUS score (Q4, 10)
Navigation nconsistency
Standardized layout patterns
No automation
Tedious manual actions
Smart automation modules
CONCLUSION
As a result of the combined content analysis and usability evaluation, several overarching patterns have
emerged. These include recurring interface design shortcomings, limited automation, and accessibility barriers
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8772
that affect user satisfaction. The following conclusion synthesizes these insights and outlines practical
implications for the development of more user-centered home network management tools.
This study underscores the pressing need for more user-friendly and feature-rich home network management
tools. The findings reveal significant gaps in current tools, particularly in areas such as automated monitoring,
user accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. These deficiencies highlight the necessity for advancements in tool
design that cater to a broader user base and enhance overall network management experiences.
Current Limitations
The analysis identified that existing tools often lack essential functionalities, such as comprehensive automated
monitoring, intuitive user interfaces, and affordability. Many tools are either overly complex for casual users or
insufficiently equipped for those requiring advanced features. This disparity necessitates a reevaluation of
design priorities to better address user needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
As identified in SUS items 4 and 10, users experienced inconsistency in the interface and had difficulty
navigating between functions. Therefore, we recommend redesigning the UI flow to ensure smoother and more
predictable navigation, especially for non-technical users.
Future developments in home network management tools should prioritize usability improvements,
incorporating intuitive interfaces that facilitate ease of use for users with varying levels of technical expertise.
Additionally, the integration of automation features can significantly reduce manual input errors and enhance
the overall efficiency of network management. Addressing cost barriers by providing more affordable solutions
with a balanced range of features will also be crucial in making advanced tools accessible to a wider audience.
Future Directions
To better meet diverse user needs, future research should focus on integrating user feedback into the design
process and exploring innovative solutions that address the identified gaps. By enhancing tool functionalities
and usability, it will be possible to improve user satisfaction and effectiveness in managing home networks.
Overall, addressing these critical issues is essential for the development of more effective and accessible home
network management solutions that can better serve users across different demographics and technical
backgrounds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to Center for Research and Innovation Management (CRIM), Universiti Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for the financial support and to Advanced Interaction Technology (AdViT), Centre
for Advanced Computing Technology (C-ACT), Fakulti Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi (FTMK) for
the support of equipment and facilities throughout this re-search.
REFERENCES
1. K. A. Neuendorf and A. Kumar, “Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its
methodology. Sage publications.,” Int. Encycl. Polit. Commun., vol. 1, no. May, 2015.
2. K. A. Neuendorf and A. Kumar, “Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its
methodology. Sage publications.,” Int. Encycl. Polit. Commun., vol. 1, no. May, 2015.
3. K. Klaus, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2004.
4. J. R. Lewis and J. Sauro, “Usability and User Experience: Design and Evaluation,” in Handbook of Human
Factors and Ergonomics, 2021, pp. 972–1015.
5. K. Sagar and A. Saha, “A systematic review of software usability studies,” Int. J. Inf. Technol., pp. 1-24.,
2017.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8773
6. J. Brooke, “SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale,” in Usability Evaluation In Industry, 2020, pp. 207–
212.
7. J. Brooke, “SUS : A Retrospective,” J. Usabilitsssssy Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, 2013.
8. R. A. Grier, A. Bangor, P. Kortum, and S. C. Peres, “The system usability scale: Beyond standard usability
testing,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2013, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 187–191.
9. R. Pushpakumar et al., “Human-Computer Interaction: Enhancing User Experience in Interactive Systems,”
Kufa J. Eng., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 23–41, 2023.
10. K. Khowaja, D. Al-Thani, A. Aqle, and B. Banire, “Accessibility or Usability of the User Interfaces for
Visually Impaired Users? A Comparative Study,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2019, vol. 11572 LNCS, pp.
268–283.
11. H. F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,” Qual. Health Res., vol.
15, no. 9, pp. 1277–1288, 2005.
12. H. F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,” Qual. Health Res., vol.
15, no. 9, pp. 1277–1288, 2005.
13. L. Campanile, M. Gribaudo, M. Iacono, F. Marulli, and M. Mastroianni, “Computer network simulation with
ns-3: A systematic literature review,” Electron., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2020.
14. Chakraborty, M. Islam, F. Shahriyar, S. Islam, H. U. Zaman, and M. Hasan, “Smart Home System: A
Comprehensive Review,” Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 2023. 2023.
15. J. Yang and W. Edwards, “A Study on Network Management Tools of Householders,” rPoceedings 2010
ACM SIGCOMM Work. Home networks. ACM., vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 1–5, 2010.
16. E. Shehan and W. Edwards, “Home networking and HCI: what hath god wrought?,” Proc. SIGCHI Conf.
Hum. factors Comput. Syst. ACM., 2007.
17. N. U. Huda, I. Ahmed, M. Adnan, M. Ali, and F. Naeem, “Experts and intelligent systems for smart homes’
Transformation to Sustainable Smart Cities: A comprehensive review,” Expert Systems with Applications,
vol. 238. 2024.
18. J. Yang, W. K. Edwards, and D. Haslem, “Eden: Supporting home network management through interactive
visual tools,” in UIST 2010 - 23rd ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2010, pp.
109–118.
19. S. Ibrahim, A. M. Abbas, A. M. A. Hassan, W. M. F. Abdel-Rehim, A. Emam, and S. Mohsen, “Design and
Implementation of a Pilot Model for IoT Smart Home Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 59701–59728,
2023.
20. S. Ryu and C. W. Hur, “Monitoring system for integrated management of IoT-based home network,” Int. J.
Electr. Comput. Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 375–380, 2016.
21. Stolojescu-Crisan, C. Crisan, and B. P. Butunoi, “An iot-based smart home automation system,” Sensors,
vol. 21, no. 11, 2021.
22. M. A. Khan et al., “Smart Android Based Home Automation System Using Internet of Things (IoT),”
Sustain., vol. 14, no. 17, 2022.
23. R. E. Grinter et al., “The ins and outs of home networking: The case for useful and usable domestic
networking,” ACM Trans. Comput. Interact., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–28, 2009.
24. Nur-A-Alam, M. Ahsan, M. A. Based, J. Haider, and E. M. G. Rodrigues, “Smart monitoring and controlling
of appliances using lora based iot system,” Designs, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021.
25. S. J. Philip, T. (Jack) Luu, and T. Carte, “There’s No place like home: Understanding users’ intentions
toward securing internet-of-things (IoT) smart home networks,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 139, 2023.
26. N. Gnotthivongsa, D. J. Huang, and K. N. Alinsavath, “Real-time corresponding and safety system to
monitor home appliances based on the internet of things technology,” Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci., vol.
12, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2020.
27. K. Gram-Hanssen and S. J. Darby, “‘Home is where the smart is’? Evaluating smart home research and
approaches against the concept of home,” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 37, pp. 94–101, 2018.
28. J. Vanus et al., “Monitoring of the daily living activities in smart home care,” Human-centric Comput. Inf.
Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, 2017.
29. S. K. Chaudhary, S. Yousuff, N. P. Meghana, T. S. Ashwin, and R. M. R. Guddeti, “A Multi-Protocol Home
Automation System Using Smart Gateway,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 2367–2390, 2021.
30. S. Romana, J. Grandhi, and P. R. L. Eswari, “Security Analysis of SOHO Wi-Fi routers,” in Proceedings -
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8774
2020 International Conference on Software Security and Assurance, ICSSA 2020, 2020, pp. 72–77.
31. N. Nthala and I. Flechais, “Rethinking Home Network Security,” 2018.
32. W. Rahman, P. T. Nguyen, M. Rusliyadi, E. Laxmi Lydia, and K. Shankar, “Network monitoring tools and
techniques uses in the network traffic management system,” Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2
Special Issue 11, pp. 4182–4188, 2019.
33. M. Chetty, H. Kim, S. Sundaresan, S. Burnett, N. Feamster, and W. K. Edwards, “UCap: An internet data
management tool for the home,” in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings,
2015, vol. 2015-April, pp. 3093–3102.
34. Kortebi, P. Le Dain, and F. Dure, “Home network assistant: Towards better diagnostics and increased
customer satisfaction,” in Global Information Infrastructure Symposium, GIIS 2013, 2013, p. . pp 1-6.
35. S. Ahmed, H. Casakin, and G. V. Georgiev, “Sustainable design and prototyping using digital fabrication
tools for education,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2021.
36. H. Habibi Gharakheili, L. Exton, V. Sivaraman, J. Matthews, and C. Russell, “Third-party customization of
residential Internet sharing using SDN,” in 25th International Telecommunication Networks and
Applications Conference, ITNAC 2015, 2015, pp. 214–219.
37. R. Mortier et al., “Control and understanding: Owning your home network,” 2012 Fourth Int. Conf.
Commun. Syst. Networks (COMSNETS 2012), pp. 1–10, Jan. 2012.
38. S. Ali, M. Elgharabawy, Q. Duchaussoy, M. Mannan, and A. Youssef, “Betrayed by the Guardian: Security
and Privacy Risks of Parental Control Solutions,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series,
2020, pp. 69–83.
39. D. Shin, K. Yun, J. Kim, P. V. Astillo, J. N. Kim, and I. You, “A Security Protocol for Route Optimization in
DMM-Based Smart Home IoT Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 142531–142550, 2019.
40. R. Mortier et al., “Homework: Putting interaction into the infrastructure,” in UIST’12 - Proceedings of the
25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2012, pp. 197–206.
41. B. Burhanuddin, “Analisis Kinerja Jaringan Wireless LAN Dengan Menggunakan Metide QOS,” J. Teknol.
Terap. Sains 4.0, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 241, Dec. 2020.
42. M. Mufadhol, G. Aryotejo, and A. Wibowo, “Netscan and networx for management bandwidth and traffic
with simple routing,” Telkomnika (Telecommunication Comput. Electron. Control., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 464–
470, 2017.
43. L. A. Bertsch, “Development tools for home automation,” IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., vol. 36, no. 4, pp.
854–858, 1990.
44. C. So-In, “A Survey of Network Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Tools,” Cse 576-06 Comput. Syst. Anal.
Proj., no. January 2006, pp. 1–24, 2009.
45. J. Pan, “A Survey of Network Simulation Tools: Current Status and Future Development,” 2008.
46. P. Goyal and A. Goyal, “Comparative study of two most popular packet sniffing tools-Tcpdump and
Wireshark,” in Proceedings - 9th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and
Communication Networks, CICN 2017, 2017, vol. 2018-Janua, pp. 77–81.
47. O. M. Nwakeze, “The Role of Network Monitoring and Analysis in Ensuring Optimal Network
Performance,” Int. Res. J. Mod. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 06, no. 06, pp. 3009–3025, 2024.
48. M. Turon, “MOTE-VIEW: A sensor network monitoring and management tool,” Second IEEE Work.
Embed. Networked Sensors, EmNetS-II, vol. 2005, pp. 11–18, 2005.
49. C. Eko Suharyanto, M. Ilmi, and Y. Arifin, “Implementasi Network Management Controller pada Jaringan
Berbasis Unifi,” Digit. Transform. Technol., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 24–33, 2024.
50. R. S. Muhawech, “Site Survey and Analysis of the Student Barracks in the Campus Area,” Luleå University
of Technology, 2024.
51. T. P. Rahmadani, “Analisis Pemantauan Access Point Local Area Network dengan Menggunakan
OpManager,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., pp. 11–23, 2022.
52. T. Fratczak, M. Broadbent, P. Georgopoulos, and N. Race, “HomeVisor: Adapting home network
environments,” in Proceedings - 2013 2nd European Workshop on Software Defined Networks, EWSDN
2013, 2013, pp. 32–37.
53. J. Sventek et al., “An information plane architecture supporting home network management,” 12th
IFIP/IEEE Int. Symp. Integr. Netw. Manag. (IM 2011) Work., pp. 1–8, May 2011.
54. N. Castelli, C. Ogonowski, T. Jakobi, M. Stein, G. Stevens, and V. Wulf, “What Happened in my Home ?:
An End-User Development Approach for Smart Home Data Visualization,” in 2017 CHI Conference on
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8775
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017, pp. 853–866.
55. Y. Zhong et al., “Smart home on smart phone,” Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Comput. - UbiComp ’11, p.
467, 2011.
56. K. Xu, X. Wang, W. Wei, H. Song, and B. Mao, “Toward software defined smart home,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 116–122, 2016.
57. S. S. Sandhu, A. Rawal, P. Kaur, and N. Gupta, “Networking in Information Communication,” Comput.
Commun. Appl. (ICCCA), 2012 Int. Conf. IEEE., pp. 1–6, 2012.
58. S. Lee, K. Levanti, and H. S. Kim, “Network monitoring: Present and future,” Comput. Networks, vol. 65,
pp. 94–98, 2014.
59. Zhu, P. Lin, and S. Cheng, “Design and Realization of Home Appliances Control System Based on the
Android Smartphone,” 2012 Int. Conf. Control Eng. Commun. Technol., pp. 56–59, Dec. 2012.
60. J. Froehlich, “Promoting energy efficient behaviors in the home through feedback: The role of human-
computer interaction,” Proc. HCIC Work., vol. 9, pp. 1–11, 2009.
61. R. Jahn, M., Jentsch, M., Prause, C. R., Pramudianto, F., Al-Akkad, A., & Reiners and M. Jentsch, “The
energy aware smart home,” 2010 5th Int. Conf. Futur. Inf. Technol. (FutureTech), IEEE., pp. 1–8, 2010.
62. R. Ball, G. Fink, and C. North, “Home-centric visualization of network traffic for security administration,”
Proc. 2004 ACM Work. Vis. data Min. Comput. Secur. ACM., pp. 55–64, 2004.
63. Ghafir, V. Prenosil, J. Svoboda, and M. Hammoudeh, “A Survey on Network Security Monitoring Systems,”
in 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud Workshops (FiCloudW),
2016, pp. 77–82.
64. C. Wilson, T. Hargreaves, and R. Hauxwell-Baldwin, “Benefits and risks of smart home technologies,”
Energy Policy, vol. 103, no. January, pp. 72–83, 2017.
65. Moallem, “Why should home networking be complicated?,” in Advances in Usability Evaluation: Part II,
CRC Press, 2013, pp. 4169–4178.
66. F. L. Verdi, H. T. De Oliveira, L. N. Sampaio, and L. A. M. Zaina, “Usability Matters: A Human-Computer
Interaction Study on Network Management Tools,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag., vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
1865–1878, 2020.