TÜRKİYE’NİN LOJİSTİK DİJİTALLEŞME YETKİNLİĞİ VE VERİ AKIŞININ YÖNETİMİ: TEKNOLOJİ ODAKLI BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin lojistikte dijitalleşme kapasitesini teknoloji yönetimi çerçevesinde incelemekte ve LPI (2023) ile UNCTAD göstergelerini kuramsal yaklaşımlarla (Porter, Açık İnovasyon, Veri Egemenliği, Dinamik Yetenekler) çapraz eşleyen bir analitik model önermektedir. Yöntem olarak nitel doküman analizi, içerik analizi ve karşılaştırmalı analiz kullanılmış; veri akışı gösterge seçimi → veri çıkarma/normalizasyon → kuram–gösterge eşleme → politika önceliklendirme → üçgenleme → duyarlılık testi adımlarıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışma, düşük performansı yüksek politika önceliğine dönüştüren Dijital Lojistik Öncelik Skoru (DLOS) adlı ağırlıklı bir karar kuralı tanımlamaktadır. Bulgular, LPI 2023 alt bileşenleri ve UNCTAD bulgularının birlikte okunmasıyla ilk üç politika önceliğini ortaya koymaktadır: (i) gümrük verimliliği ve e-gümrük entegrasyonu, (ii) izleme ve takip ve veri paylaşım platformları, (iii) lojistik yeterlilik ve kalite. Özgün katkı, derlenmiş endekslerin ötesine geçip türetilmiş öncelik sıralaması ve kuram–gösterge eşleme matrisi sunulmasıdır. Sonuçlar, WCO Data Model ile uluslararası uyumu ve ulusal politika belgeleriyle (T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı; TÜBİSAD; Ulaştırma ve Lojistik 2053) üçgenlemeyi desteklemektedir. Sınırlılıklar ikincil veriye dayalı olmaktır; gelecekte nicel yöntemler (panel regresyon, ağ analizi), saha çalışmaları ve vaka analizleri ile derinleştirme önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Lojistik Dijitalleşme
• LPI
• UNCTAD
• Veri Egemenliği
• Açık İnovasyon
• Dinamik Yetenekler
• E-Gümrük
• Politika Analizi

CRITICAL DATA FLOWS IN GLOBAL TRADE AND TÜRKİYE’S LOGISTICS PLATFORM COMPETENCE: AN EVALUATION FROM A TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

This study assesses Türkiye’s logistics digitalization capacity within a technology management framework and proposes an analytical model that cross-maps LPI (2023) and UNCTAD indicators with theoretical lenses (Porter, Open Innovation, Data/Digital Sovereignty, Dynamic Capabilities). We adopt qualitative document, content, and comparative analyses, executing a transparent pipeline of indicator selection → data extraction/normalization → theory–indicator mapping → policy prioritization → triangulation → sensitivity testing. We introduce a weighted decision rule, the Digital Logistics Priority Score (DLOS), which converts low performance into high policy priority. Joint reading of LPI 2023 sub-indices and UNCTAD evidence yields three priorities: (i) customs efficiency & e-customs integration, (ii) tracking/traceability & data-sharing platforms, (iii) logistics competence & service quality. Our originality lies in moving beyond compiled indices to provide a derived priority ordering and a theory–indicator mapping matrix. Findings support long-term alignment with the WCO Data Model and are triangulated with national sources (Ministry of Trade, Transport & Logistics 2053, TÜBİSAD). Limitations stem from secondary data; future research should deploy quantitative methods (panel regressions, network analysis), field surveys, and comparative case studies.

Keywords

• Logistics Digitalization
• LPI
• UNCTAD
• Data Sovereignty
• Open Innovation
• Dynamic Capabilities
• E-Customs
• Policy Analysis

References

1. Aylak, B. L. (2022a). Impacts of sustainability on supply chain management. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 34, 105–109.
2. Aylak, B. L. (2022b). The effects of the applications of blockchain technology on the logistics sector. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 34, 148–152.
3. Aylak, B. L., Kayıkcı, Y., & Taş, M. A. (2020). Türkiye’de lojistik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin dijital trendlerinin incelenmesi. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 15(57), 98–116.
4. Aylak, B. L., Oral, O., & Yazici, K. (2021). Yapay zeka ve makine öğrenmesi tekniklerinin lojistik sektöründe kullanımı. El-Cezeri, 8(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.31202/ECJSE.776314
5. Baldoni, R., & Di Luna, G. (2025). Sovereignty in the digital era: The quest for continuous access to dependable technological capabilities. IEEE Security & Privacy, 23(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSEC.2024.3500192
6. Beske, P. (2012). Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(4), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211231344
7. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

9. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson.
10. Çelik, E. N. (2025). Yapay zekâ sistemlerinin küresel tedarik zinciri entegrasyonu ve performansına etkileri üzerine bir araştırma. Journal of Transport Management and Research, 2(1), 86–99.
11. Dodgson, M. (2000). The management of technological innovation. Oxford University Press.
12. El Baz, J., & Ruel, S. (2021). Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? International Journal of Production Economics, 233, 107972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107972
13. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x
14. European Commission. (2017a). Exchanging and protecting personal data in a globalised world (COM(2017) 7 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52017DC0007
15. European Commission. (2017b). Commission proposes to update data protection rules. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en
16. European Commission. (2021, June 4). Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC). https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc_en
17. European Commission. (2023, July 10). EU–US data transfers: Adequacy decision for the EU–US Data Privacy Framework. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/eu-us-data-transfers_en (Bkz. “Adequacy decision” 10 July 2023 kaydı)
18. Ghezzi, A. (2019). Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup Approaches: Effectuation, bricolage and opportunity creation in practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.017
19. Ghezzi, A., & Cavallo, A. (2020). Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: Lean Startup approaches. Journal of Business Research, 110, 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.013
20. Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Frank, A. G. (2015). Strategy and business model design in dynamic telecommunications industries: A study on Italian mobile network operators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.006
21. Gregory, M. J. (1995). Technology management: A process approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 209(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1995_209_067_02
22. Hofmann, E., & Rutschmann, E. (2018). Big data analytics and demand forecasting in supply chains: A conceptual analysis. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(2), 739–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2017-0088
23. Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086
24. Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(2), 619–626.
25. Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107831
26. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
27. Liao, S. H. (2005). Technology management methodologies and applications: A literature review. Technovation, 25(4), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.08.002
28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
29. OECD. (2019). Innovation, productivity and sustainability in food and agriculture. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c9c4ec1d-en
30. Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532
31. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
32. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
33. Roman, E.-A., Stere, A.-S., Ros, E., Radu, A.-V., Codroiu, D., & Anamaria, I. (2025). State of the art of digital twins in improving supply chain resilience. Logistics, 9(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9010022
34. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (n.d.). Gümrük Rehberi. Erişim tarihi: 10 Eylül 2025, https://gumrukrehberi.gov.tr/
35. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2019, 16 Kasım). Ticaret Bakanlığının yeni “Gümrük Rehberi” kullanıma açıldı [Basın duyurusu]. https://ticaret.gov.tr/haberler/ticaret-bakanliginin-yeni-gumruk-rehberi-kullanima-acildi
36. T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı. (2022). 2053 Ulaştırma ve Lojistik Ana Planı. https://www.uab.gov.tr/uploads/pages/bakanlik-yayinlari/20221025-2053-ulastirma-ve-lojistik-ana-plani-tr.pdf
37. 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::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
38. TÜBİSAD. (2023). Türkiye Dijital Dönüşüm Raporu 2023. https://www.tubisad.org.tr
39. UNCTAD. (2022). World Investment Report 2022: International tax reforms and sustainable investment. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2022_en.pdf
40. UNCTAD. (2023). Handbook of Statistics 2023: International trade, investment, population and development indicators. https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2023
41. UNCTAD. (2024). Digital Economy Report 2024: Data and cross-border flows. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2024_en.pdf
42. UNESCAP, UNECA, UNECE, UNECLAC, UNESCWA, & UNCTAD. (2023). Digital and sustainable trade facilitation: Global report 2023. https://www.unescap.org/kp/2023/digital-and-sustainable-trade-facilitation-global-report-2023
43. Ünsal, E. (2009). Dinamik bir yetenek olarak teknoloji yönetimi. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 167–189.
44. WEF. (2020). The global competitiveness report: How countries are performing on the road to recovery. World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2020.pdf
45. World Bank. (2023). Connecting to compete 2023: The LPI and its indicators. https://doi.org/10.1596/39760
46. World Customs Organization. (2019). WCO data model: The single language for international supply chain. https://www.wcoomd.org/DataModel
47. Yılmaz, B. (2025). Determining the digitalization levels of leading countries in LPI. Journal of Productivity, 59(2), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1541480