Vazife Tahlilinde Kritik Faktör Analizi: Uygulamalı Bir Çerçeve ile Yöntemsel Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışma, Vazife Tahlilinde Kritik Faktör Analizi (KFA) sürecini geliştirmeye odaklanmaktadır. Araştırma, mevcut yöntemi daha çevik, veri temelli ve ölçülebilir hâle getirmek amacıyla Faktör–Vazife Etki Puanı (FVEP) adlı yeni bir yöntem önermektedir. FVEP yöntemi, klasik faktör analizinde görülen öznel puanlama eğilimini azaltarak karar sürecine analitik bir boyut kazandırmaktadır. Klasik yöntemden farklı olarak FVEP, her faktörü üç temel boyutta değerlendirmektedir: Etkileme Yoğunluğu (EY), Etkileme Yönü Değeri (EYD) ve Görülme Olasılığı (GO). Bu üç değişkenin etkileşimi sonucunda Faktör–Vazife Etki Puanı (FVEP) elde edilmekte ve faktörün vazifeye etkisi sayısal olarak ifade edilebilmektedir. Analiz sonucunda, her faktörün görevlere farklı ağırlıklarda etki ettiği ve bu etkinin karşılığında önerilen eylemlerle kategorik olarak ilişkilendirilebildiği görülmüştür. Çalışmanın bulguları, Kesin Sonuç Noktalarına (KSN) karşılık gelen görevlerin operasyonel tasarımın iskeletini oluşturduğunu doğrulamaktadır. FVEP yöntemi sayesinde komutan, hangi faktörün hangi görevi veya sonucu etkilediğini ölçebilmekte; görev önceliklendirmesini veriye dayalı biçimde yapabilmektedir. Böylece kuvvetlerin dağınık kullanımı önlenmekte, stratejik hedefe odaklanma kolaylaşmaktadır. FVEP, analizi analitik bir forma dönüştürmekte, tüm planlamacıların erişebileceği aranabilir ve sıralanabilir bir veritabanı oluşturulmasını sağlamaktadır. Bu yöntem, kritik faktör analizinin sınırlılıklarını ortadan kaldırmakta ve askerî planlama süreçlerinde karar destek sistemlerine ölçülebilir veri enstrümanı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vazife Tahlili
• Kritik Faktör Analizi
• Askerî Karar Verme Süreci (AKVES)

Factor Analysis in Mission Analysis: A Methodological Approach with an Applied Framework

Öz

This study focuses on improving the Critical Factor Analysis (CFA) process. It proposes a new method, the Factor–Mission Impact Score (FMIS) approach, to make the existing system more agile, data-driven, and measurable. The FMIS method reduces the subjective scoring tendency observed in classical factor analysis and introduces an analytical dimension to the decision-making process. Unlike the traditional approach, FMIS evaluates each factor through three fundamental dimensions: Influence Intensity (II), Influence Direction Value (IDV), and Occurrence Probability (OP). The interaction among these three variables produces the Factor–Mission Influence Score (FMIS), allowing the factor’s influence on the mission to be expressed numerically. The analysis results indicate that each factor affects missions with different weights and that these effects can be categorically linked to recommended actions. The study’s findings confirm that tasks corresponding to Decisive Points (DPs) constitute the framework of operational design. Through the FMIS method, commanders can measure which factor influences which task or outcome and perform data-based task prioritization. Consequently, the dispersed use of forces is minimized, and focus on strategic objectives is enhanced. The FMIS transforms the analysis into an analytical form, enabling the creation of a searchable and sortable database accessible to all planners. This method eliminates the limitations of traditional critical factor analysis and can be utilized as a quantifiable decision-support system in military planning processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Critical Factor Analysis
• Mission Analysis
• Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP)

Kaynakça

1. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 5-0 (2012). The operations process. Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
2. Aktürk, E. (2024). Keşif-gözetleme sistemleri, yapay zekâ destekli istihbarat oluşturma ve karar verme süreçlerine entegrasyonu. İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi 2024 Ulusal Kongre Bildiri Kitabı (21. Yüzyil Savaşlarinda Strateji, Operatif, Taktik ve Teknik: Tespitler ve Değerlendirmeler).
3. Allied Joint Publication-5 (AJP-5). (2019). Allied joint doctrine for the planning of operations. NATO Standardization Office (NSO), Edition A Version 2, UK Change 1, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971390/20210310-AJP_5_with_UK_elem_final_web.pdf.
4. Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 2-33.4, (2014). Intelligence analysis. U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence. Headquarters Department of the Army Washington DC. pp. 3–11. https://cyberwar.nl/d/201408xx-US-Army-ATP-2-33.4-Intelligence-Analysis_USArmy-IntelAnalysis.pdf.
5. Bayram, N. (2012). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. (5’inci Baskı), Ezgi Yayınevi, Bursa.
6. Bueger, C. (2024). Beyond the surface: Six spatial domains of maritime security. Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy (KIMS) No.336. https://kims.or.kr/file/peri336.pdf.
7. Büyükekşi, C., & Çolakoğlu, Ö. M. (2014). Türkiye’de eğitim araştırmalarında kullanılan faktör analizi tekniğinin incelenmesi. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 158–167
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf.

9. Comprehensive operations planning directive (COPD) Version 3.1, (2023, October 13). NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
10. Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Research Council, National Academies Press. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/618/2015/11/Enhancing-the-Effectiveness-of-Team-Science-2015.pdf.
11. Crabb, A. L. (2022). Toward military design six ways the JP 5-0’s operational design falls short. Joint Force Quarterly, 105, 99–104. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-105/jfq-105_99-104_Crabb.pdf?ver=2u3Y-AEqChcM3rbJTfdjgQ%3d%3d.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
13. Creviston, D. O. (2020). Transforming DOD for agile multidomain command and control. Joint Force Quarterly, 97, 83–90. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-97/jfq-97_83-90_Creviston.pdf?ver=2020-03-31-214148-340.
14. Değirmen, S. (2024). Muharebe sahasinda stratejik etkiye sahip kuvvet çarpanı: Anlık bilgi akışı esaslı karar üstünlüğü. İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi 2024 Ulusal Kongre Bildiri Kitabı (21. Yüzyil Savaşlarinda Strateji, Operatif, Taktik ve Teknik: Tespitler ve Değerlendirmeler).
15. Eikmeier, D. C., & Iova, T. (2021). Factor analysis a valuable technique in support of mission analysis. Military Review, 101(5), 65–72. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/SO-21/eikmeier-factor-analysis/eikmeier.pdf.
16. Field Manual (FM) 3-0 (2022). Operations. Washington DC: Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
17. Field Manual (FM) 5-0 (2010). The operations process. Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
18. Field Manual (FM) 101-5 (1997). Staff organization and operations. Washington DC: Department of the Army. https://archive.org/details/FM_101-5_Staff_Organization_and_Operations/page/n1/mode/2up?q=end+state.
19. Hillson, D., & Hulett, D. T. (2004). Assessing risk probability: Alternative approaches. Conference Paper. Global Congress-2004. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/assessing-risk-probability-impact-alternative-approaches-8444.
20. Joint Publication (JP) 2-01.3 (2009). Joint intelligence preparation of the operational environment. https://edocs.nps.edu/dodpubs/topic/jointpubs/JP2/JP2-01.3_090616.pdf.
21. Joint Publication (JP) 5-0. (2020, December 01). Joint planning. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp5_0.pdf.
22. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.cole13.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Daniel-Kahneman-Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-Farrar-Straus-and-Giroux-2013.pdf.
23. Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. (3’üncü Baskı), Asil Yayınları, Ankara.
24. Kılıç, İ., & Ural, A. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma süreci ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
25. Körpe, Ö. (2021a). Türk stratejik kültüründe çözümü çerçevelemek: Katmanlı bir harekât tasarımı önerisi. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 17(37), 157–201. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.905936
26. Körpe, Ö. (2021b). Framing Turkey’s cross-border counterterrorism operations: An operational design. Military Review, September-October 101(5), 116-128.
27. Kuczynski, G. (2023). Military decision–making process organizing and conducting planning. Center for Army Lessons Learned Handbook, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/11/17/f7177a3c/23-07-594-military-decision-making-process-nov-23-public.pdf.
28. Leedom, D. (2003). Functional analysis of the next generation common operating picture. In Proceedings of the 8th annual International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/functional-analysis-of-the-next-generation-common-operating-picture-leedom-n-d.pdf.
29. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. New York University Press. https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf.
30. Loffert, J. M. (2002). Mission analysis: Giving commanders what they need. A Monograph, School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, First Term AY 01-02. https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA403591/page/10/mode/2up.
31. Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP-6). (2018). MCDP 6: Command and control. Change 1 to MCDP 6. United States Marine Corps (USMC). Washington D.C. Department of the Navy. https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/CEME/courses/MCDP%206%20Command%20and%20Control.pdf?ver=2018-09-24-142237-623.
32. Martinsons, M. G., & Davison, R. M. (2007, February). Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing Amerfşğlü8567””ican, Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems Volume 43, Issue 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.10.005.
33. MCWP 5-10 (2020). Marine Corps planning process. United States Marine Corps (USMC). https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/CDET/content/other/MCWP%205-10.pdf.
34. Orellana, R. (2016). NATO operations planning process– An overview. NATO School Joint Plans Department, https://nuou.org.ua/assets/documents/nato-operations-planning-process.pdf Oberammergau, Germany.
35. Paparone, C. R. (2001). US Army decision-making: Past, present and future. Military Review. US Army CGSC. https://scispace.com/authors/christopher-r-paparone-igz5ey78xo.
36. Pehlivan, O., & Öz, T. (2020). Askerî karar verme sürecinin taktik ve operatif seviyede etkinliği ve eğitim ihtiyacı. SAVSAD Savunma ve Savaş Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(36), 947–975. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.847726
37. 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. RACSAM, 102(2), 251–318. https://rac.es/ficheros/doc/00576.PDF.
38. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York University School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance USA, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3376401&seq=8.
39. Sorrells, W. T., Downing, G. R., Blakesley, P. J., Pendall, D., Walk, J. K., & Wallwork, R. D. (2005). Systemic operational design: An introduction. A Monograph. School of Advanced Military Studies US Army Command and General Staff College. https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA479311.
40. Şengöz, M. (2021). Yapay zekâ tabanlı sistemlerden üretilen teknolojilerin askerî harekâtın sevk ve idaresinde kullanılmasına yönelik bir değerlendirme. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(4), 2159–2171.
41. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1. (2014). The U.S. Army operating concept win in a complex world. https://www.ssri-j.com/MediaReport/DocumentUS/TRADOC-AOC(TP525-3-1).pdf
42. Turanlı, M., Taşpınar, C. D., & Bozkır, Ö. (2012). Faktör analizi ile üniversiteye giriş sınavlarindaki başarı durumuna göre illerin sıralanması. İstanbul Üniveristesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, (17), 45–68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/95001.
43. Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK). (t.y.). Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri. https://sozluk.gov.tr/.
44. United States Army Combined Arms Center (USACAC). (2017). Multi-domain battle: Evolution of combined arms for the 21st century 2025-2040. Army University Press (AUP). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D101-PURL-gpo129084/pdf/GOVPUB-D101-PURL-gpo129084.pdf.
45. Wampler, R. L., Centric, J., & Salter, M. S. (1998, January). The military decision-making process (MDMP): A prototype. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Infantry Forces Research UnitTraining Product. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA343154.pdf.
46. Williams, B. S. (2010). Heuristics & biases in military decision making. Military Review (September-October). https://scispace.com/pdf/heuristics-and-biases-in-military-decision-making-4rpuolx5my.pdf. p. 40
47. Yılmaz, S. (2024). Yeni teknolojiler ve savunma sanayii. Türkiye Asya Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi (TASAM) Yayınları. https://tasam.org/Files/Icerik/File/Yeni_Teknolojiler_ve_Savunma_Sanayii_pdf_b0c53814-867c-479f-90ca-9efcd2f98ca3.pdf?ysclid=mgyycx6uj191799256.
48. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://www.academia.edu/39205037/ABeginnersGuide_to_Factor_Analysis_Focusing_on_Exploratory_Factor_Analysis.