Savunma ve Güvenlik Alanında Yenilik Yönetimi ve Yapay Zekâ Söylemleri: Türkiye Savunma Sektörü Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Year 2026, Volume: 3 Issue: 1 , 67 - 90 , 27.03.2026

Ahmet Sarnıç , Begüm Çardak , Şeyda Öcal Arslan

https://izlik.org/JA65JM86GC

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye savunma sanayii bağlamında yenilik yönetimi ile yapay zekâ temelli teknolojik dönüşümün örgütsel düzeyde nasıl kesiştiğini ve bu kesişimin kurumsal dönüşüm süreçlerini nasıl yapılandırdığını incelemektedir. Savunma sektöründe dijitalleşme, otomasyon ve yapay zekâ temelli karar süreçlerinin yalnızca teknik bir kapasite artışına değil, örgütsel ve stratejik dönüşümün yönlendirici unsuruna dönüştüğü varsayılmaktadır. Araştırma, Defense News Top 100 listesinde yer alan Türk savunma firmalarının (ASELSAN, TUSAŞ, ROKETSAN, ASFAT ve MKE) kurumsal raporları, strateji belgeleri ve kamuya açık açıklamalarına yönelik söylem ve içerik analizine dayanmaktadır. Kodlama süreci, Burke–Litwin örgütsel dönüşüm modeli ve Askerî İşlerde Devrim (Revolution in Military Affairs; RMA) teorisinin kavramsal boyutlarından hareketle hem dedüktif hem indüktif biçimde yürütülmüş; iki araştırmacı tarafından gerçekleştirilen çapraz kodlama sonucunda güvenirlik sağlanmıştır. Bulgular, yenilik yönetimi söylemlerinin Ar-Ge ekosistemi, yetkinlik geliştirme, kurumsal kültür ve stratejik vizyon aracılığıyla şekillendiğini; yapay zekâ söylemlerinin ise otonomi, karar destek, verimlilik, etik ve güvenlik temaları etrafında kurumsal meşruiyetle ilişkilendirildiğini göstermektedir. RMA çerçevesi, yapay zekânın yalnızca teknoloji yatırımı olmanın ötesine geçerek karar süreçlerini, örgütsel yapıları ve savunma doktrinlerini dönüştüren bütüncül bir paradigma olarak kavramsallaştırıldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar, savunma sanayii kurumlarında yenilik söylemlerinin teknik üretim kapasitesini aşarak kurumsal kimlik, meşruiyet ve stratejik konumlanmanın kurucu bileşeni hâline geldiğini göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, yönetim-organizasyon literatürü ile güvenlik çalışmalarının teknolojik eksenini bir araya getiren analitik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Yenilik Yönetimi , Yapay Zekâ , Örgütsel Dönüşüm , Güvenlik , Savunma Sektörü

Innovation Management and Artificial Intelligence Discourses in Defense and Security: A Qualitative Study on the Turkish Defense Sector

https://izlik.org/JA65JM86GC

Abstract

This study examines how innovation management and artificial intelligence–based technological transformation intersect at the organizational level within the context of the Turkish defense industry, and how this intersection structures processes of institutional transformation. It assumes that digitalization, automation, and AI-driven decision-making processes in the defense sector do not solely enhance technical capacity but also constitute drivers of organizational and strategic transformation. The research relies on discourse and content analysis of annual reports, strategic documents, and publicly available statements published by Turkish defense companies listed in the Defense News Top 100 ranking (ASELSAN, TUSAŞ, ROKETSAN, ASFAT, and MKE). The coding process was conducted through a combined deductive and inductive approach informed by the conceptual dimensions of the Burke–Litwin organizational transformation model and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) theory, and reliability was ensured through cross-coding by two researchers. Findings indicate that innovation management discourse is shaped through themes related to R&D ecosystem development, capability building, organizational culture, and strategic vision, while AI discourse is associated with autonomy, decision support, efficiency, ethics, and security as components of institutional legitimacy. The RMA perspective demonstrates that AI is conceptualized not merely as a technological investment but as an integrated paradigm transforming decision-making, organizational structures, and defense doctrines. Overall, the results suggest that innovation discourse in the defense sector transcends technical production capacity and functions as a constitutive element of institutional identity, legitimacy construction, and strategic positioning. Accordingly, the study offers an analytical framework that bridges management-organization scholarship with the technology-focused orientation of security studies.

Keywords

Innovation Management , Artificial Intelligence , Organizational Transformation , Security , Defense Sector

References

• Adamsky, D. (2010). The culture of military innovation: The impact of cultural factors on the revolution in military affairs in Russia, the US, and Israel. Stanford University Press.
• Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority. CCRP Publication.
• Allen, G., & Chan, T. (2017). Artificial intelligence and national security. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.
• Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010). Beyond change management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. Pfeiffer.
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
• Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (1997). In Athena’s camp: Preparing for conflict in the information age. RAND Corporation.
• Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
• Aysal, S. (2022). Yapay zekâ uluslararası ilişkilerde askerî alanda devrim midir? ABD ve Çin rekabeti üzerinden bir değerlendirme (Yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Bayar, M. (2019). Yerlileşme ve savunma sektörü: Türkiye deneyimi. SETA Yayınları.
• Biddle, S. (1998). The past as prologue: Assessing theories of future warfare. Security Studies, 8(1), 1–74.
• Bilgin, P. (2020). Technology, nationalism and the security imaginary in Turkey. Critical Studies on Security, 8(1), 10–22.
• Bitzinger, R. A. (2018). Emerging critical technologies and their impact on the defense industry. Routledge.
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
• Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
• Buzan, B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-Cold War era. Lynne Rienner.
• By, R. T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
• Cebrowski, A. K., & Garstka, J. J. (1998). Network-centric warfare: Its origin and future. Proceedings Magazine, 124(1), 1–8.
• Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. MIT Press.
• Cohen, E. (1996). A revolution in warfare. Foreign Affairs, 75(2), 37–54.
• Coker, C. (2013). War in the age of intelligent machines. Polity Press.
• De Spiegeleire, S., Maas, M., & Sweijs, T. (2017). AI and the future of defense: Strategic implications for the United States. Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
• Demir, İ. (2021). Defence industry and strategic autonomy in Turkey. Insight Turkey, 23(2), 45–60.
• Erdoğan, M., & Tüfekçi, H. (2022). Technology dependence and strategic autonomy: Limits of defense industrialization. Uluslararası Güvenlik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 20–34.
• Erman, E., & Furendal, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and the political legitimacy of global AI governance. Political Studies, 72(2), 421–441.
• European Defence Agency. (2023). Annual report 2022. European Defence Agency.
• European Defence Agency. (2023). AI capabilities in European defence. European Defence Agency.
• Fiott, D. (2018, November 30). Strategic autonomy: Towards ‘European sovereignty’ in defence? EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) Brief, 12/2018.
• Freedman, L. (1998). The revolution in strategic affairs (Adelphi Paper 318). International Institute for Strategic Studies.
• Gray, C. S. (2006). Strategy and history: Essays on theory and practice. Routledge.
• Gürcan, M. (2019). Türkiye’nin askerî dönüşümü ve RMA perspektifi. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(2), 29–42.
• Horowitz, M. C. (2018). Algorithms and the changing character of warfare. Security Studies, 27(1), 44–65.
• Horowitz, M. C. (2019). The promise and peril of military applications of artificial intelligence. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75(3), 96–101.
• Howorth, J. (2019). Strategic autonomy and EU defence in the 21st century. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(1), 10–27.
• İletişim Başkanlığı. (2020). Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan: Amacımız, ülkemizi Millî Teknoloji Hamlesi hedefimiz doğrultusunda dördüncü sanayi devrimi ürün ve teknolojilerinin üssü haline getirmektir. İletişim Başkanlığı. (Er.T.:12.12.2025).
• Johnson, M. (2021). AI and the RMA: The cognitive revolution. Center for a New American Security.
• Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Krepinevich, A. F. (1992). The military-technical revolution: A preliminary assessment. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
• Krepinevich, A. F. (1994). Cavalry to computer: The pattern of military revolutions. The National Interest, 37, 30–42.
• Kuşat, N. (2012). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve işletmeler açısından önemi. Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(1), 111–126.
• Mariani, M. M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in innovation management: A preview of future research developments. Journal of Business Research, 175, 114542.
• Metz, S., & Kievit, J. (1995). Strategy and the revolution in military affairs: From theory to policy. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
• Murray, W., & Knox, M. (2001). The dynamics of military revolution, 1300–2050. Cambridge University Press.
• NATO. (2024, July 10). NATO releases revised Artificial Intelligence (AI) strategy. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. https://www.nato.int
• NATO Parliamentary Assembly. (2024). NATO and AI (058 STC). NATO PA.
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
• O’Hanlon, M. E. (2000). Technological change and the future of warfare. Brookings Institution Press.
• Ogarkov, N. V. (1982). Always in readiness to defend the Fatherland. Voenizdat.
• Ökten, T. (2020). Askerî alanda devrim: Ateş gücü–manevra dengesi. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 16(33), 125–162. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.719975
• Payne, K. (2021). I, warbot: The dawn of artificially intelligent conflict. Oxford University Press.
• Rattray, G. J. (2001). Strategic warfare in the cyber age. MIT Press.
• Reuters. (2024, June 18). NATO targets AI, robots and space tech in €1.1 billion fund. Erişim adresi: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/
• Sarnıç, A., & Özutku, H. (2025). Endüstri 4.0 sürecinde insan kaynakları yönetimi işlevlerinde yaşanan değişimler üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(55), 535–566.
• Scharre, P. (2018). Army of none: Autonomous weapons and the future of war. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Schmidt, J. R., & Goehring, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare: Implications for strategic stability. Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
• Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin Press.
• Sönmez, M. (2020). Yerli ve millî teknoloji söylemi bağlamında savunma sektöründe stratejik özerklik. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 17(66), 15–33.
• Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.
• Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386