Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinde Yazılım Tedarik Kararları: GAHP ve Duyarlılık Analizi Uygulaması

Year 2025, Volume: 59 Issue: 4, 925 - 942, 08.10.2025

Mustafa Kaya

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1633117

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki devlet üniversitelerinin Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlıkları (BİDB) bünyesinde yazılım tedarik süreçlerini verimliliği sağlayacak, sistematik ve bilimsel bir yöntemle yönetmelerine yardımcı olacak bir karar modeli sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Yöntem: Çalışmada, altı temel kriter (Maliyet, Teknik Uygunluk, Zaman ve Hız, Performans ve Kalite, Güvenlik ve Uyumluluk, Risk ve Esneklik) ve yedi alternatif (Tamamen Kurum İçi Geliştirme, Kısmen Dış Kaynak Kullanımı, Tamamen Dış Kaynak Kullanımı, Hazır Yazılım, Hibrit/Modüler Çözüm, Ortak Geliştirme, Bulut Çözüm) değerlendirilmiştir. Karar verme sürecine beş uzman katılmış, her biri teknik uygunluk, bütçe, güvenlik ve kullanıcı deneyimi gibi alanlarda katkı sağlamıştır. Çalışmada Grup Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (GAHP) yöntemi kullanılarak, karar vericilerin kolektif uzmanlığını nesnel bir çerçevede birleştirmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Bulgular: GAHP ve duyarlılık analizi sonuçları, Tamamen Kurum İçi Geliştirmenin en iyi alternatif olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, modelin karar değişimlerine karşı dayanıklı olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki devlet üniversitelerinde yazılım tedarik süreçlerine yönelik GAHP uygulamasını içeren sınırlı sayıdaki çalışmalardan biridir. Aynı zamanda, Sıralama Tersine Dönmesi Yöntemi ile duyarlılık analizi gerçekleştirilmiş ve karar modelinin istikrarı test edilmiştir.

Keywords

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme , Tedarikçi Seçimi , Grup Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (GAHP) , Karar Destek Sistemleri , Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri

Software Supply Decisions in State Universities in Türkiye: An Application of GAHP and Sensitivity Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to present a decision model designed to help the Information Technology Departments (ITDs) of state universities in Türkiye manage software procurement processes more efficiently through a systematic and scientific approach.
Methodology: Six key criteria (Cost, Technical Suitability, Time and Speed, Performance and Quality, Security and Compliance, and Risk and Flexibility) and seven alternatives (In-House Development, Partial Outsourcing, Full Outsourcing, Off-the-Shelf Software, Hybrid/Modular Solution, Joint Development, and Cloud Solution) were evaluated. Five experts participated in the decision-making process, each contributing expertise in areas such as technical suitability, budgeting, security, and user experience. The Group Analytic Hierarchy Process (GAHP) method was applied to integrate the collective expertise of decision-makers into an objective framework.
Findings: The results of GAHP and the sensitivity analysis show that In-House Development is the most favorable alternative. Moreover, the model was found to be robust against ranking reversals.
Originality: This study is among the limited research focusing on the application of Group AHP in software procurement processes within Turkish state universities. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conducted using the rank reversal method, which confirmed the stability of the decision model.

Keywords

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) , Supplier Selection , Group Analytic Hierarchy Process (GAHP) , Decision Support Systems , Management Information Systems

References

• Aires, R.F. ve Ferreira, L.M.D. (2018). “The Impact of Rank Reversal on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods: A Comparative Analysis”, Operational Research, 18(3), 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0354-x
• Arshad, Y., Ahlan, A.R. ve Ajayi, B.A. (2013). “Intelligent IT Governance Decision-Making Support Framework for A Developing Country’s Public University”, International Journal of Digital Content Technology and Its Applications, 7(11), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDT-130183
• Belton, V. ve Gear, T. (1983). “On A Short-Coming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic Hierarchies”, Omega, 11(3), 228-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6
• Calik, A., Pehlivan, N.Y. ve Pekgor, A. (2012). “Fuzzy AHP/DEA Approach for Relative Efficiency of State Universities in Turkey”, Uncertainty Modeling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making, 1064-1069. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417747_0170
• Chakhar, S. ve Saad, I. (2014). “Incorporating Stakeholders’ Knowledge in Group Decision-Making”, Journal of Decision Systems, 23(1), 113-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2014.865828
• Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C.W. ve Choy, K.L. (2008). “Global Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-AHP Approach”, International Journal of Production Research, 46(14), 3825-3857. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600787200
• Çalışkan, E. ve Aksakal, E. (2019). “Hybrid Use of Likert Scale-Based AHP and PROMETHEE Methods for Hazard Analysis and Consequence Modeling (HACM) Software Selection”, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 18(5), 1825-1851. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622019500330
• Dyer, J.S. (1990). “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Management Science, 36(3), 249-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.249
• Favretto, J. ve Nottar, L.A. (2016). “Utilização da metodologia Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) na definição de um software acadêmico para uma Instituição de Ensino Superior do Oeste Catarinense. Revista de Administração e Inovação”, 11(2), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.20985/1980-5160.2016.v11n2.881
• Forman, E. ve Peniwati, K. (1998). “Aggregating Individual Judgments and Priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 165-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0
• Ghosh, T., Chakraborty, T. ve Dan, P.K. (2012). “An Effective AHP Based Metaheuristic Approach to Solve Supplier Selection Problem”, International Journal of Procurement Management, 5(6), 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2012.045647
• Ishizaka, A. ve Labib, A. (2011). “Review of the Main Developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336-14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
• Islam, M.M. ve Arakawa, M. (2022). “Integrated Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Model for Supplier Selection in An Uncertain Environment”, Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 2079220. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2079220
• Ivanco, M.L. (2014). “Development of Analytical Sensitivity Analysis for AHP Applications”, Master’s Thesis, Old Dominion University. https://doi.org/10.25777/yqdz-jv40
• Ivanco, M., Hou, G. ve Michaeli, J. (2017). “Sensitivity Analysis Method to Address User Disparities in the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Expert Systems with Applications, 85, 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.003
• Kahraman, C., Suder, A. ve Cebi, S. (2013). “Fuzzy Multi-Criteria and Multi-Experts Evaluation of Government Investments in Higher Education: The Case of Turkey”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.837110
• Karsak, E.E. ve Özogul, C.O. (2009). “An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for ERP System Selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 660–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.016
• Majumdar, A., Tiwari, M.K., Agarwal, A. ve Prajapat, K. (2021). “A New Case of Rank Reversal in Analytic Hierarchy Process due to Aggregation of Cost and Benefit Criteria”, Operations Research Perspectives, 8, 100185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100185
• Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Lovrenčić, V., Al-Najjar, B. ve Gomišček, B. (2014). “An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Sensitivity Analysis for Maintenance Policy Selection”, Organizacija, 47(4), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2014-0016
• Marcarelli, G. ve Squillante, M. (2019). “A Group AHP Based Approach for Selecting the Best Public Tender”, Soft Computing, 23(22), 11829–11840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04479-1
• Masuda, T. ve Fujii, K. (1987). “Sensitivity Analyses of Priorities Used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers, 23(10), 1060-1067. https://doi.org/10.9746/sicetr1965.23.1060
• Melnik-Leroy, G. ve Dzemyda, G. (2021). “Cognitive Biases in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: AHP Case Study”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2223
• Muhammad, H. ve Hromada, M. (2023). “Evaluating A Proposed E-Government Stage Model in Terms of Personal Data Protection”, Applied Sciences, 13(6), 3913. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13063913
• Önüt, S. ve Efendigil, T. (2010). “A Theoretical Model Design for ERP Software Selection Process under the Constraints of Cost and Quality: A Fuzzy Approach”, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 21(6), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-2010-0457
• Pekin, A., Özkan, G., Eski, O., Karaarslan, U., Ertek, G. ve Kılıç, K. (2006). “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Selection of Forecasting Software”, 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Sakarya, Turkey.
• Rivero Gutiérrez, L., De Vicente Oliva, M.A. ve Romero-Ania, A. (2021). “Managing Sustainable Urban Public Transport Systems: An AHP Multicriteria Decision Model”, Sustainability, 13(9), 4614. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13094614
• Rouyendegh, B.D. ve Erkan, T.E. (2011). “ERP System Selection by AHP Method: Case Study from Turkey”, The International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 152-160.
• Saaty, T.L. ve Vargas, L.G. (2012). “Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
• Saaty, T.L. (1980). “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation”, McGraw-Hill.
• Saaty, T.L. (1987). “Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Risk Analysis, 7(2), 159-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00980.x
• Saaty, T.L. (1990). “How to Make A Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
• Saaty, T.L. (2001). “Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Managing Forest Ecosystems Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2
• Saaty, T.L. (2003). “Decision-Making with the AHP: Why Is the Principal Eigenvector Necessary”, European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
• Saaty, T.L. (2008). “Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise Comparisons Are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors—The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process”, Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales Serie A Matematicas, 102(2), 251-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825
• Sari, R., Kurniastuti, I. ve Sulistiyani, E. (2024). “Comparative Analysis of Prioritization Model between AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and ANP (Analytic Network Process) for Project Portfolio Management SI/IT Surabaya City Government”, Applied Technology and Computing Science Journal, 6(2), 88-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.33086/atcsj.v6i2.5208
• Sayed, H.A., Abdelhamid, M.A., Abdelkader, T.K., Lai, Q., Mousa, A.M. ve Refai, M. (2024). “Machine Learning and Analytic Hierarchy Process Integration for Selecting A Sustainable Tractor”, Scientific Reports, 14, 26735. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78023-z
• Schmidt, K., Babac, A., Pauer, F., Damm, K. ve von der Schulenburg, J.M. (2016). “Measuring Patients’ Priorities Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and Rating Cards: Methodological Aspects and Ranking Tasks”, Health Economics Review, 6(1), 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0130-6
• Seker, S. ve Kahraman, C. (2021). “A Pythagorean Cubic Fuzzy Methodology Based on TOPSIS and TODIM Methods and Its Application to Software Selection Problem”, Soft Computing, 25(12), 7843-7857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06469-8
• Then, K.A. ve Amaria, P. (2013). “Factors Related to the Adoption of IT Emerging Technologies by Research and Non-Research Based Higher Education Institutions”, Research in Higher Education Journal, 21, 1-12.
• Toth, E. ve Vacik, H. (2018). “A Comprehensive Sensitivity Analysis for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Environmental Decision Support”, Environmental Modelling & Software, 103, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.02.002
• Uzoka, F-M.E. ve Akinnuwesi, B. (2019). “Development and Evaluation of An AHP Model for Software Systems Selection”, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 14(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.22367/MCDM.2019.14.07
• Vaidya, O.S. ve Kumar, S. (2006). “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications”, European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
• Vargas, L.G. (1990). “An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Applications”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90056-H
• Vatansever, K. (2013). “Evaluation of Product Purchase Decisions with Fuzzy AHP Method in State Hospitals: Gediz State Hospital Case”, Journal of Health and Hospital Administration, 1(1), 45-58.