Bulanık DEMATEL Yöntemi Kullanılarak Askeri İnovasyona Yön Veren Faktörlerin İncelenmesi: Türkiye'de Bir Vaka Çalışması

Yıl 2025, Sayı: ERKEN GÖRÜNÜM, 1 - 1

Selçuk Cantürk , Fahri Alp Erdoğan , Murat Sağbaş

https://doi.org/10.17134/khosbd.1548500

Öz

Araştırma Türkiye’deki askeri yenilik algısını konu edinmekte ve askeri yenilik algısını tanımlamak ve askeri yeniliği tetikleyen unsurların önceliklendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Literatürde askeri yeniliği yönelik çalışmalar sınırlı olmakla birlikte unsurlar arasında bir önceliklendirme yapılan çalışmanın olmadığı görülmüştür. Askeri yenilik tartışmaları kapsamında sivil etkisi, değişen tehdit algısı, askeri ve ekonomik ittifaklar, teknolojik yenilik, askerî kültür, rakip ordularla rekabet, operasyonel gereklilikler ana unsurlar olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulanık DEMATEL yöntem araştırmanın amacına uygun olarak tercih edilmiştir. Türkiye’de görev yapan ve askeri yenilik konusunda uzmanlığa sahip olan sivil ve askeri uzmanlar ile akademisyenlerden oluşan toplam 7 katılımcı araştırmada yer almıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre askeri yeniliği tetikleyen en önemli kriterler sırasıyla; rakip ordularla rekabet, teknolojik yenilik, askeri ve ekonomik ittifaklar, değişen tehdit algısı, operasyonel gereklilikler, askeri kültür ve sivil etkisi şeklinde sıralandığı belirlenmiştir. Kriterlerin birbirleri üzerine etkisi analiz edildiğinde ise değişen tehdit algısı, sivil etkisi ve askeri kültür unsurlarının diğer askeri yenilik unsurlarını etkilediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bulgular, askeri inovasyonun bileşenlerine ilişkin farkındalığın artırılması ihtiyacının altını çizdiği ve bu alanda daha fazla araştırma yapılması çağrısında bulunduğu ve potansiyel olarak gelecekteki stratejileri ve politikaları şekillendirdiği için önemli çıkarımlara sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Askeri Yenilik, Bulanık DEMATEL, Türk Ordusu, Yenilik Faktörlerini Önceliklendirilmesi

Examining the Factors Driving Military Innovation Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method: A Case Study of Türkiye

Öz

The study explores the perception of military innovation in Turkey, with the primary objective of defining this perception and prioritizing the factors that drive military innovation. While the existing literature on military innovation is limited, there is a noticeable absence of prioritization studies among them. Broadly, civilian influence, evolving threat perception, military and economic alliances, technological innovation, military culture, competition with rival armies, and operational requirements are identified as key factors within discussions on military innovation. The Fuzzy DEMATEL method was chosen in line with the research's objectives. A total of 7 participants, including civilian and military experts, as well as academics with expertise in military innovation and operating in Turkey, took part in the study. The research findings highlight the most crucial criteria driving military innovation, with competition with rival armies, technological innovation, military and economic alliances, changing threat perception, operational requirements, military culture, and civilian influence emerging as the most crucial. These findings have significant implications, as they underscore the need for increased awareness of the components of military innovation and call for further research in this area. Moreover, they have the potential to significantly influence and shape future strategies and policies in the field of military innovation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Military Innovation, Fuzzy DEMATEL, Turkish Military, Prioritization of Innovation Factors

Kaynakça

• [1] Sinterniklaas, R. (2018). Military Innovation: Cutting the Gordian Knot, Research Paper:116, Breda: Publications Faculty of Military Sciences Netherlands Defence Academy.
• [2] Mevlütoglu, A. (2017) “Commentary on Assessing the Turkish Defense Industry: Structural Issues and Major Challenges”, Defense Studies, 17:3, pp. 282–294. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2017.1349534
• [3] Egeli, S., Güvenç, S., Kurç, Ç. and Mevlütoğlu, A. (2024), From Client to Competitor: The Rise of Turkiye’s Defence Industry, Raport. The International Institute for Strategic Studies ,1-27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15922.00962.
• [4] Kurç, Ç. & Neuman, S. G. (2017). Defence industries in the 21st century: a comparative analysis, Defence Studies. vol. 17, no.3: 219-227. DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14702436.2017.1350105.
• [5] Ateş, B. (ed.). (2023). Military Innovation in Türkiye: An Overview of the Post-cold War Era (1st ed.). London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003327127.
• [6] Posen, B. R. (1984). The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the World Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.
• [7] Terriff, T., & Farrell, T. (2002). Military Change in the New Millennium. T. Farrell, T. Terriff (ed.). The Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, Technology. (pp. 265-277). Londra: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• [8] Marten-Zisk, K. (1993). Engaging the Enemy: Organization Theory and Soviet Military Innovation, 1955–1991. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rjc7.
• [9] Avant, D. D. (1994). Political Institutions and Military Change: Lessons from Peripheral Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.
• [10] King, A. (2011). The Transformation of Europe’s Armed Forces: From the Rhine to Afghanistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778469.
• [11] Blanton, S. L. & Kegley, C. W. (2017). World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2016–2017 Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning.
• [12] Sloan, E. (2008). Military Transformation and Modern Warfare A Reference Handbook. Westport: Praeger Security International.
• [13] Malesic, M. (2005). Introduction: The Challenge of Defence Transformation in Europe, T. Edmunds & M. Malesic (ed.). Defence Transformation in Europe: Evolving Military Roles. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
• [14] Farrell, T., Rynning, S. & Terriff, T. (2013). Transforming Military Power Since the Cold War: Britain, France, and the United States, 1991–2012. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107360143.
• [15] Russell, J. A. (2010). İnnovation in War: Counterinsurgency Operations in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces, Iraq, 2005–2007. Journal of Strategic Studies, 33 (4): 595–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2010.489715.
• [16] Avant, D. D. (1994). Political Institutions and Military Change: Lessons from Peripheral Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.
• [17] Golts, A. M. & Putnam, T. L. (2004). State Militarism and Its Legacies: Why Military Reform Has Failed in Russia, International Security. The MIT Press. 29 (2): 121-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288042879968.
• [18] Lynn, J. A. (1996). The Evolution of Army Style in the Modern West, 800–2000. The International History Review, 18(3): 505-545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1996.964075.
• [19] Posen, B. R. (1984). The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the World Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.
• [20] Moskos, C., Williams, J.A., Segal, D.R. (2000). The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War. Moskoc, C., Toward Postmodern Military: The United State (pp.14-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• [21] Sloan, E. (2008). Military Transformation and Modern Warfare A Reference Handbook. Westport: Praeger Security International.
• [22] Terriff, T., & Farrell, T. (2002). Military Change in the New Millennium. T. Farrell, T. Terriff (ed.). The Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, Technology. (pp. 265-277). Londra: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• [23] Jain, N. (2023). “What is Technology Innovation? Definition, Examples and Strategic Management”: IDEASCALE. https://ideascale.com/blog/what-is-technology-innovation/.
• [24] Mcluhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The making of Typograhic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• [25] Rosen, S. P. (1991). Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military. New York: Cornell University Press.
• [26] Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• [27] Terriff, T., & Farrell, T. (2002). Military Change in the New Millennium. T. Farrell, T. Terriff (ed.). The Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, Technology. (pp. 265-277). Londra: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• [28] Grissom, A. (2006). The Future of Military Innovation Studies. Journal of Strategic Studies, 29 (5): 905-934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390600901067.
• [29] Kier, E. (1995). Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars. International Security. 19 (4), 65-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539120.
• [30] Marten-Zisk, K. (1993). Engaging the Enemy: Organization Theory and Soviet Military Innovation, 1955–1991. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rjc7.
• [31] Russell, J. A. (2010). İnnovation in War: Counterinsurgency Operations in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces, Iraq, 2005–2007. Journal of Strategic Studies, 33 (4): 595–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2010.489715
• [32] Seker, S., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2017). Application of fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing occupational risks on construction sites. Sustainability, 9(11): 2083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112083.