KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Türkiye'deki Ar-Ge Merkezli KOBİ ve Girişimlerde Uzman Odaklı Öğrenmeye Dayalı YZ Taksonomisinin Benimsenme Sıklığı

Adoption Frequencies of Expert- Driven Learning-Based AI Taxonomy among R&D SMEs and Start-ups in Turkiye

Arafat Salih Aydıner(İSTANBUL MEDENİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SİYASAL BİLGİLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ, YÖNETİM BİLİŞİM SİSTEMLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-1133-5995
Sayfa
1589–1614
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Benimseme sektörlere göre de farklılık göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Yapay zekânın (YZ) kurumsal düzeyde benimsenmesi yaygın olarak incelenmiş olsa da, firmaların benimsediği spesifik algoritmalar ve bu seçimlerin nedenleri hakkında az bilgi bulunmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki araştırma ve geliştirme (AR-GE) küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmeler (KOBİ'ler) ve yeni kurulan şirketler arasında YZ’nin benimsenmesini, yedi YZ ailesine gruplandırılmış 28 algoritmadan oluşan, uzman odaklı, öğrenme alanı tabanlı bir taksonomi önerisi aracılığıyla araştırmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Benimseme sektörlere göre de farklılık göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Yapay zekanın benimsenmesi · yapay zekanın taksonomisi · yapay zeka ailesi

Özet

Yapay zekânın (YZ) kurumsal düzeyde benimsenmesi yaygın olarak incelenmiş olsa da, firmaların benimsediği spesifik algoritmalar ve bu seçimlerin nedenleri hakkında az bilgi bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki araştırma ve geliştirme (AR-GE) küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmeler (KOBİ'ler) ve yeni kurulan şirketler arasında YZ’nin benimsenmesini, yedi YZ ailesine gruplandırılmış 28 algoritmadan oluşan, uzman odaklı, öğrenme alanı tabanlı bir taksonomi önerisi aracılığıyla araştırmaktadır. Anket verileri İstanbul Ticaret Odası'na bağlı 36 kuruluştan toplanmıştır. Güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik sağlanmış ve benimseme, tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve parametrik olmayan Kruskal-Wallis ve Mann-Whitney testleri ile incelenmiştir. Algoritma düzeyinde, Karar Ağaçları, Sinir Ağları, Çok Katmanlı Algılayıcı ve Doğrusal Regresyon en çok benimsenen algoritmalar olup, yorumlanabilir ve yapısal olarak tanıdık yöntemlere olan tercihi yansıtmaktadır. Buna karşılık, Derin Q-Ağı, Politika Gradyanı ve Eşzamanlı Konumlandırma ve Haritalama en az benimsenen algoritmalar olmuştur. Aile düzeyinde, Denetimsiz Öğrenme ve Doğal Dil İşleme en yüksek sıralarda yer alırken, Takviyeli Öğrenme ve Otonom Davranış en düşük ve en farklı benimseme oranlarıyla sonuçlanmıştır. Benimseme sektörlere göre de farklılık göstermektedir. Finans/FinTech ve Mühendislik/ Savunma en geniş benimseme portföyünü içerirken, Sağlık ve Ticaret/e-Ticaret en dar portföyü sunmaktadır. Otonom Davranış ve Denetimsiz Öğrenme istatistiksel olarak sektörler arası anlamlı farklılıklar göstermektedir. Benimseme aralığı organizasyonel aşamalarda artarak kuluçka sonrası durumda zirveye ulaşmıştır. Bulgular, Teknoloji-Organizasyon-Çevre çerçevesini, yenilik yayılımı ve dinamik yetenek teorisiyle algoritma düzeyine getirmekte, hedef olarak KOBİ'lerin dijital dönüşümünde yapay zekâ algoritma bilgisinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption is widely studied at the organizational level, yet much less is known about the specific algorithms organizations adopt and the reasons for these choices. This study investigates AI adoption among research-and-development (R&D) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups in Turkiye through a proposed expert-driven, learning-domain-based taxonomy comprising 28 algorithms grouped into seven AI families. Survey data were collected from 36 organizations affiliated with the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce. Reliability and validity were established, and adoption was examined through descriptive statistics and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. At the algorithm level, Decision Trees, Neural Networks, Multilayer Perceptron, and Linear Regression were the most adopted, reflecting a preference for interpretable, structurally familiar methods, whereas Deep Q-Network, Policy Gradient, and Simultaneous Localization and Mapping were the least adopted. At the family level, Unsupervised Learning and Natural Language Processing ranked highest, while Reinforcement Learning and Autonomous Behavior recorded the lowest and most divergent adoption. Adoption also varied by sector—Financial/FinTech and Engineering/Defense showed the broadest portfolios and Healthcare and Commerce/e-Commerce the narrowest—with statistically significant cross-sector differences for Autonomous Behavior and Unsupervised Learning. Adoption range increased across organizational stages, peaking at post-incubation. The findings extend the Technology-Organization-Environment framework with diffusion of innovation and dynamic capability theory to the algorithm level and emphasize AI algorithms’ knowledge as a target for SMEs’ digital transformation.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Aydıner, A. S. (2026). Türkiye'deki Ar-Ge Merkezli KOBİ ve Girişimlerde Uzman Odaklı Öğrenmeye Dayalı YZ Taksonomisinin Benimsenme Sıklığı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 1589–1614. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1976789

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (74)

  1. Abukmeil, M., Ferrari, S., Genovese, A., Piuri, V., & Scotti, F. (2022). A survey of unsupervised generative models for exploratory data analysis and representation learning. ACM computing surveys, 54(5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3450963
  2. Ahmed, S. F., Alam, M. S. Bin, Hassan, M., Rozbu, M. R., Ishtiak, T., Rafa, N., Mofijur, M., Shawkat Ali, A.B. M., & Gandomi, A. H. (2023). Deep learning modelling techniques: current progress, applications, advantages, and challenges. Artificial intelligence review (Vol. 56, Number 11). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10466-8
  3. Alekseev, A., & Strobel, C. (2026). A taxonomy of AI experiments. Journal of behavioral and experimental economics, 121, 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2026.102525
  4. AlSheibani, S., Cheung, Y., & Messom, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence adoption: AI-readiness at firm-level. Twenty-second pacific asia conference on information systems. https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/ about/Files/AIAdoptionFramework.pdf
  5. Aydıner, A. S., Ortaköy, S., & Özsürünç, Z. (2023). Employees’ perception of value-added activity increase of Robotic Process Automation with time and cost efficiency: a case study. International journal of information systems and project management, 11(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm110102
  6. Ayinaddis, S. G. (2025). Artificial intelligence adoption dynamics and knowledge in SMEs and large firms: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of innovation and knowledge, 10(3), 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100682
  7. Bai, Y., Yan, B., Zhou, C., Su, T., & Jin, X. (2023). State of art on state estimation: Kalman filter driven by machine learning. Annual reviews in control, 56(October), 100909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. arcontrol.2023.100909
  8. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. 34th conference on neural information processing systems. https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/
  9. Brynjolfsson, E., & Mcafee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence: What it can-and cannot-do for your organization Harvard business review, 7(1), 1-2.
  10. Chen, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. (2021). Explore success factors that impact artificial intelligence adoption on telecom industry in China. Journal of management analytics, 8(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23 270012.2020.1852895
  11. Chen, J., Zhou, W., & Frankwick, G. L. (2025). Firm AI Adoption Intensity and Marketing Performance. Journal of computer information systems, 65(2), 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2 277751.
  12. Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable: A systematic approach to reliability coefficients. Organizational research methods, 19(4), 651–682.
  13. Chowdhury, S., Dey, P., Joel-Edgar, S., Bhattacharya, S., Rodriguez-Espindola, O., Abadie, A., & Truong, L. (2023). Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework. Human resource management review, 33(1), 100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2022.100899
  14. Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gates® idea-to-launch process - Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of product innovation management, 25(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
  15. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
  16. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Wadsworth Publishing.
  17. Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. NAACL HLT 2019 - 2019 Conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies - proceedings of the conference, 1, 4171–4186.
  18. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications, fifth edition. California: SAGE Publications.
  19. de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate behavioral research, 44(2), 147–181.
  20. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method--2007 update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. New Jersey, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  21. Ding, Y., Wang, L., Li, Y., & Li, D. (2018). Model predictive control and its application in agriculture: A review. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 151(December 2017), 104–117. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.06.004
  22. Du-Harpur, X., Watt, F. M., Luscombe, N. M., & Lynch, M. D. (2020). What is AI? Applications of artificial intelligence to dermatology. British journal of dermatology, 183(3), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjd.18880Dutta, A. (2025). Taxonomy of artificial intelligence. Ericson Canada Inc.
  23. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., … Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International journal of information management, 57(August 2019), 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
  24. Eckhardt, C. M., Madjarova, S. J., Williams, R. J., Ollivier, M., Karlsson, J., Pareek, A., & Nwachukwu, B. U. (2023). Unsupervised machine learning methods and emerging applications in healthcare. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 31(2), 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07233-7
  25. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
  26. Fabregat-Hernández, A., Palanca, J., & Botti, V. (2023). Exploring explainable AI: category theory insights into machine learning algorithms. Machine learning: science and technology, 4(4). https://doi. org/10.1088/2632-2153/ad1534
  27. Fiorini, S. R., Carbonera, J. L., Gonҫalves, P., Jorge, V. A. M., Rey, V. F., Haidegger, T., Abel, M., Redfield, S. A., Balakirsky, S., Ragavan, V., Li, H., Schlenoff, C., & Prestes, E. (2015). Extensions to the core ontology for robotics and automation. Robotics and computer-integrated manufacturing, 33, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2014.08.004
  28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research (Vol. 18, Number 1, pp. 39–50).
  29. Gama, F., & Magistretti, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence in innovation management: A review of innovation capabilities and a taxonomy of AI applications. Journal of product innovation management, 42(1), 76–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12698
  30. Gama, J., & Brazdil, P. (1995). Characterization of classification on algorithms. Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, 189–200.
  31. Gheisari, M., Ebrahimzadeh, F., Rahimi, M., Moazzamigodarzi, M., Liu, Y., Dutta Pramanik, P. K., Heravi, M. A., Mehbodniya, A., Ghaderzadeh, M., Feylizadeh, M. R., & Kosari, S. (2023). Deep learning: Applications, architectures, models, tools, and frameworks: A comprehensive survey. CAAI transactions on intelligence technology, 8(3), 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1049/cit2.12180
  32. Gill, S. S., Golec, M., Hu, J., Xu, M., Du, J., Wu, H., Walia, G. K., Murugesan, S. S., Ali, B., Kumar, M., Ye, K., Verma, P., Kumar, S., Cuadrado, F., & Uhlig, S. (2025). Edge AI: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Cluster computing, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-024-04686-y
  33. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.).Cengage. Hair, J. F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research methods for business. New York, NY: Wiley.
  34. Hansen, H. F., Lillesund, E., Mikalef, P., & Altwaijry, Ν. (2024). Understanding artificial intelligence diffusion through an ai capability maturity model. Information systems frontiers, 26(6), 2147–2163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10528-4
  35. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, second edition. Springer.
  36. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. Communication methods and measures, 14(1), 1–24.
  37. Holub-Iwan, J., Kupczyk, T., Debita, G., & Rupa, P. (2021). Leadership and effectiveness of incubation of start-ups: research scheme for next generation stage gate. European research studies journal, XXIV(4), 797–818.
  38. Hossain, M. A., Agnihotri, R., Rushan, M. R. I., Rahman, M. S., & Sumi, S. F. (2022). Marketing analytics capability, artificial intelligence adoption, and firms’ competitive advantage: Evidence from the manufacturing industry. Industrial marketing management, 106, 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2022.08.017
  39. Jiang, T., Gradus, J. L., & Rosellini, A. J. (2020). Supervised machine learning: a brief primer. Behavior therapy, 51(5), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2020.05.002
  40. Leithold, N., Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. (2015). Stage-gate® for SMEs: a qualitative study in Germany. European journal of innovation management, 18(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJIM-07-2014-0070
  41. Liu, Y. T., Yang, J. M., Chen, L., Guo, T., & Jiang, Y. (2020). Overview of reinforcement learning based on value and policy. Proceedings of the 32nd Chinese control and decision conference, CCDC 2020, 598–603. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC49329.2020.9164615
  42. Liu, Y., & Wang, H. (2026). Who on earth is using generative AI? World development, 199(November 2025), 107260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.107260
  43. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Conference on human factors in computing systems - Proceedings, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
  44. Lu, Y. (2019). Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends. Journal of management analytics, 6(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2019.1570365
  45. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84–99.
  46. McDonald, R. P. (2011). Test theory: A unified treatment. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  47. Mienye, I. D., & Sun, Y. (2022). A survey of ensemble learning: concepts, algorithms, applications, and prospects. IEEE access, 10(August), 99129–99149. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207287
  48. Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information and management, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103434
  49. Mikalef, P., Lemmer, K., Schaefer, C., Ylinen, M., Fjørtoft, S. O., Torvatn, H. Y., Gupta, M., & Niehaves, B. (2022). Enabling AI capabilities in government agencies: A study of determinants for European municipalities. Government information quarterly, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101596
  50. Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., & Talwalkar, A. (2018). Foundations of machine learning (2nd ed.). The MIT Press. www.dbooks.org
  51. Mollick, E. (2024). Co-intelligence: living and working with AI. New York: Penguin Random House LLC.
  52. Nagahisarchoghaei, M., Nur, N., Cummins, L., Nur, N., Karimi, M. M., Nandanwar, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Rahimi, S. (2023). An empirical survey on explainable AI technologies: recent trends, use-cases, and categories from technical and application perspectives. Electronics (Switzerland), 12(5). https:// doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051092
  53. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  54. Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016). Predicting the future — big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. New england journal of medicine, 375(13), 1216–1219. https://doi.org/10.1056/ nejmp1606181
  55. OECD. (2025). AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises: OECD discussion paper for the G7. AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ai-adoption-by-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises_426399c1-en.html
  56. Pramod, D. (2022). Robotic process automation for industry: adoption status, benefits, challenges and research agenda. Benchmarking, 29(5), 1562–1586. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2021-0033
  57. Prestes, E., Carbonera, J. L., Rama Fiorini, S., Vitor, V. A., Abel, M., Madhavan, R., Locoro, A., Goncalves, P., E. Barreto, M., Habib, M., Chibani, A., Gérard, S., Amirat, Y., & Schlenoff, C. (2013). Towards a core ontology for robotics and automation. Robotics and autonomous systems, 61(11), 1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.04.005
  58. Radhakrishnan, J., & Chattopadhyay, M. (2020). Determinants and barriers of artificial intelligence adoption – A literature review. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, 617, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64849-7_9
  59. Raiaan, M. A. K., Mukta, M. S. H., Fatema, K., Fahad, N. M., Sakib, S., Mim, M. M. J., Ahmad, J., Ali, M. E., & Azam, S. (2024). A review on large language models: architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges. IEEE access, 12(January), 26839–26874. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2024.3365742
  60. Rana, A., Rawat, A. S., Bijalwan, A., & Bahuguna, H. (2018). Application of multi layer (perceptron) artificial neural network in the diagnosis system: a systematic review. Proceedings of the 2018 3rd IEEE international conference on research in intelligent and computing in engineering, RICE 2018, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/RICE.2018.8509069
  61. Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. Psychological assessment, 31(12), 1395–1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000754
  62. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, Fifth Edition. Free Press. Roustaei, N.(2024).Applicationandinterpretation of linear regressionanalysis. Medicalhypothesis, discovery, and innovation in ophthalmology,13(3),151–159. https://doi.org/10.51329/mehdiophthal1506
  63. Schapire, R. E. (2013). Explaining AdaBoost (pp. 37–52). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  64. Shakya, A. K., Pillai, G., & Chakrabarty, S. (2023). Reinforcement learning algorithms: A brief survey. Expert systems with applications, 231(April), 120495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120495
  65. Shao, M., Basit, A., Karri, R., & Shafique, M. (2024). Survey of different large language model architectures: trends, benchmarks, and challenges. IEEE access, 12, 188664–188706. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2024.3482107
  66. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. The MIT Press.
  67. Talbi, E.-G. (2020). Optimization of deep neural networks: a survey and unified taxonomy. https://inria.hal. science/hal-02570804v2
  68. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education (Vol. 2, pp. 53–55). https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  69. Uren, V., & Edwards, J. S. (2023). Technology readiness and the organizational journey towards AI adoption: An empirical study. International journal of information management, 68(September 2022), 102588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588
  70. Valkenborg, D., Rousseau, A. J., Geubbelmans, M., & Burzykowski, T. (2023). Support vector machines. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (Vol. 164, Number 5, pp. 754–757). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.08.003
  71. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  72. Wadud, M. A. H., Mridha, M. F., & Rahman, M. M. (2022). Word embedding methods for word representation in deep learning for natural language processing. Iraqi journal of science, 63(3), 1349–1361. https:// doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2022.63.3.37
  73. Wu, C., Zhang, R., Kotagiri, R., & Bouvry, P. (2023). Strategic decisions: survey, taxonomy, and future directions from an artificial intelligence perspective. ACM computing surveys (Vol. 55, Number 12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571807
  74. Zebec, A., & Indihar Štemberger, M. (2020). Conceptualizing a capability-based view of artificial intelligence adoption in a BPM context. Lecture notes in business information processing, 397, 194–205. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66498-5_15