Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisleri Perspektifinden Türkiye’de Üniversitelerin Dijitalleşme Süreci

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde kurumsal dijital dönüşüm süreçlerini, Dijital Dönüşüm Ofislerinin (DDO) işleyişi üzerinden incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma yöntemiyle yapılandırılan çalışmada, 13 üniversitede görev yapan DDO yöneticileriyle gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlardan elde edilen veriler tematik analiz yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, üniversitelerde dijitalleşmenin yalnızca teknolojik altyapı yatırımlarıyla sınırlı olmadığını; aynı zamanda yönetsel vizyon, örgütsel yapı, stratejik planlama kapasitesi ve insan kaynağı yeterliliği gibi çok katmanlı unsurlarla doğrudan ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle DDO’ların rektörlüğe bağlı olarak konumlandığı yapılarda dijital dönüşüm süreçlerinin daha stratejik, sistematik ve sürdürülebilir bir çerçevede yürütüldüğü görülmektedir. Buna karşılık, teknik birimlere bağlı DDO’lar daha sınırlı yetkiyle hareket etmekte ve karar alma süreçlerine katılımları kısıtlı kalmaktadır. Araştırmada, dijital stratejilerin kurumsal belgelerle desteklenmesinin dönüşümün başarısını artırdığı; bireysel ve kültürel direnç, teknik personel yetersizliği, liderlik eksiklikleri ve bütçe kısıtlarının ise süreci zorlaştırdığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, yükseköğretimde dijital dönüşümün yalnızca teknoloji temelli değil; aynı zamanda kurumsal kültür, yönetişim biçimleri ve karar alma yapılarında köklü bir yeniden yapılanmayı gerekli kıldığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Dönüşüm
• Yükseköğretim
• Dijital Strateji
• Yönetişim
• DDO

Digital Transformation in Turkish Higher Education: Insights From University Digital Transformation Offices

Öz

This study examines the institutional digital transformation processes in Turkish universities through the operational practices of Digital Transformation Offices (DTOs). Designed using a qualitative research method, the study analyzes data obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with DTO managers from 13 universities through thematic analysis. The findings reveal that digitalization in universities is not limited to technological infrastructure investments; rather, it is directly related to multidimensional factors such as administrative vision, organizational structure, strategic planning capacity, and human resource adequacy. It is observed that in institutions where DTOs are positioned directly under the rectorate, digital transformation processes are carried out in a more strategic, systematic, and sustainable manner. Conversely, DTOs operating under technical units tend to have limited authority and restricted participation in decision-making processes. The study also finds that supporting digital strategies with formal institutional documents enhances the success of transformation, whereas individual and cultural resistance, lack of technical personnel, leadership deficiencies, and budgetary constraints hinder the process. Overall, the study demonstrates that digital transformation in higher education is not merely a technology-oriented transition but requires a comprehensive institutional restructuring encompassing organizational culture, governance structures, and decision-making mechanisms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Transformation
• Higher Education
• Digital strategy
• Governance
• DTO

Kaynakça

1. Ajmera, R., & Dharamdasani, D. K. (2014). E-Learning Quality Criteria and Aspects (No. arXiv:1406.7744). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.7744
2. Aktan, O., & Toraman, Ç. (2022). The relationship between Technostress levels and job satisfaction of Teachers within the COVID-19 period. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10429-10453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11027-2
3. Ali, I., & Warraich, N. F. (2024). Meta-analysis of technology acceptance for mobile and digital libraries in academic settings using technology acceptance model (TAM). Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2023-0360
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation is Not the Issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2NC7B
6. Chen, Y., Ma, H., & Zhou, T. (2024). Learn from Whom? An Empirical Study of Enterprise Digital Mimetic Isomorphism under the Institutional Environment. Economies, 12(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12090243
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
8. Eke, E. (Ed.). (2021). YÖNETİM (Dijital Çağın Yeni Normal Pratikleri). Nobel Akademi. https://www.nobelyayin.com/yonetim-dijital-cagin-yeni-normal-pratikleri-17996.html

9. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. SAGE.
10. Hoblos, N., Sandeep, M. S., & Pan, S. L. (2025). Achieving stakeholder alignment in digital transformation: A frame transformation perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 39(4), 630-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231219518
11. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Press.
12. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE.
13. Lu, H.-P., & Wang, J.-C. (2023). Exploring the effects of sudden institutional coercive pressure on digital transformation in colleges from teachers’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15991-16015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11781-x
14. Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 16(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2004010104
15. Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Sánchez, I. (2016). Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. International Business Review, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.009
16. Matsunaga, M. (2021). Testing the Theory of Communication and Uncertainty Management in the Context of Digital Transformation with Transformational Leadership as a Moderator. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211023966
17. Ochieng, M. (2024). Enhancing Digital Transformation Success in Education through Effective Stakeholder Engagement Strategies. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/16041
18. Onan, G. (2024). Digital Transformation and Digital Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: Insights from the Literature. 8, 198-213. https://doi.org/10.38015/sbyy.1587587
19. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.
20. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
21. Ramírez, Y., & Tejada, Á. (2019). Digital transparency and public accountability in Spanish universities in online media. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(5), 701-732. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2019-0039
22. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. SAGE Publications, Inc.
23. Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
24. Smith, J. J., Payne, B. H., Klassen, S., Doyle, D. T., & Fiesler, C. (2023). Incorporating Ethics in Computing Courses: Perspectives from Educators. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569855
25. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
26. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
27. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE.
28. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2023). Yükseköğretim Kurulu 2024-2028 Stratejik Planı (s. 129). YÖK.
29. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2024). Üniversite İzleme ve Değerlendirme Genel Raporu 2024. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/2024/universite-izleme-ve-degerlendirme-genel-raporu-2024.pdf
30. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
31. Zheng, M., Asif, M., Tufail, M. S., Naseer, S., Khokhar, S. G., Chen, X., & Naveed, R. T. (2022). COVID Academic Pandemic: Techno Stress Faced by Teaching Staff for Online Academic Activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895371