TY  - JOUR
T1  - Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinde Yazılım Tedarik Kararları: GAHP ve Duyarlılık Analizi Uygulaması
TT  - Software Supply Decisions in State Universities in Türkiye: An Application of GAHP and Sensitivity Analysis
AU  - Kaya, Mustafa
PY  - 2025
DA  - October
Y2  - 2025
DO  - 10.51551/verimlilik.1633117
JF  - Verimlilik Dergisi
PB  - Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1013-1388
SP  - 925
EP  - 942
VL  - 59
IS  - 4
LA  - tr
AB  - 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.
KW  - Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
KW  - Tedarikçi Seçimi
KW  - Grup Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (GAHP)
KW  - Karar Destek Sistemleri
KW  - Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri
N2  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - Saaty, T.L. (1980). “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation”, McGraw-Hill.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1633117
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/4579344
ER  -