KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

An Integrated SVN–Grey–Fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP Decision Support Framework for Prioritizing Technological Factors in Digital Systems

Ayşe Nur Adıgüzel Tüylü(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-3640-976X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

The proposed integrated decision support framework is not specific to a single application domain but provides a general methodological infrastructure that can be directly adapted to different engineering problems such as smart systems, digital platforms, engineering design, software architecture and technology investment prioritization.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, an integrated Single-Valued Neutrosophic (SVN), Grey, and Fuzzy-based DEMATEL–ANP decision support framework is proposed to prioritize and identify causal relationships between technological factors affecting technology-intensive digital systems.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Uncertainty in expert judgments was addressed separately using three different uncertainty modeling approaches (SVN, Grey, and Fuzzy), and the results were comparatively analyzed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The proposed integrated decision support framework is not specific to a single application domain but provides a general methodological infrastructure that can be directly adapted to different engineering problems such as smart systems, digital platforms, engineering design, software architecture and technology investment prioritization.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Single-Valued Neutrosophic Sets · DEMATEL-ANP · Decision Support System

Abstract

In this study, an integrated Single-Valued Neutrosophic (SVN), Grey, and Fuzzy-based DEMATEL–ANP decision support framework is proposed to prioritize and identify causal relationships between technological factors affecting technology-intensive digital systems. The methodological framework, on the one hand, reveals cause-and-effect relationships between criteria (DEMATEL) and, on the other hand, calculates criteria weights within a feedback network structure (ANP). Uncertainty in expert judgments was addressed separately using three different uncertainty modeling approaches (SVN, Grey, and Fuzzy), and the results were comparatively analyzed. The findings demonstrated that infrastructure capacity, accessibility-focused system design, content/structure diversity, and system monitoring modules are key factors determining the performance of technology-based digital systems. Furthermore, the comparative analysis results revealed that the Grey approach produced more responsive results in technical infrastructure and data management, while the Neutrosophic and Fuzzy approaches produced more responsive results in user interaction and content-focused factors. The proposed integrated decision support framework is not specific to a single application domain but provides a general methodological infrastructure that can be directly adapted to different engineering problems such as smart systems, digital platforms, engineering design, software architecture and technology investment prioritization.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tüylü, A. N. A. (2026). An Integrated SVN–Grey–Fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP Decision Support Framework for Prioritizing Technological Factors in Digital Systems. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1838764

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (35)

  1. A. Haleem, M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman, “Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review,” Sustainable Operations and Computers, vol. 3, pp. 275–285, 2022.
  2. D. Al-Fraihat, M. Joy, R. Masa'deh, and J. Sinclair, “Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 102, pp. 67–86, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.
  3. M. A. Almaiah, A. Al-Khasawneh, and A. Althunibat, “Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 25, pp. 5261–5280, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y.
  4. Sangeeta and U. Tandon, “Factors influencing adoption of online teaching by school teachers: A study during COVID-19 pandemic,” Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 21, no. 4, e2503, 2021, doi: 10.1002/pa.2503.
  5. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2020.
  6. M. M. Abdelwahab, K. A. Al-Karawi, and H. E. Semary, “A Systematic Review of Assistive Technology for Enhancing the Students with Disabilities,” Journal of Disability Research, vol. 4, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.57197/JDR-2024-0117.
  7. F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic, American Research Press, 1998.
  8. F. Ferri, P. Grifoni, and T. Guzzo, “Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations,” Societies, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 86, 2020, doi: 10.3390/soc10040086.
  9. M. A. Almaiah and A. Al Mulhem, “Analysis of the essential factors affecting intention to use mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities learners and employees,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1403–1426, 2020.
  10. E. E. Rotas and M. B. Cahapay, “Difficulties in Remote Learning: Voices of Philippine University Students,” Asian Journal of Distance Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 147–158, 2020, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4317957.
  11. T. Ercan, “Cloud computing utilization in distance education,” International Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021.
  12. O. Viberg, M. Hatakka, O. Balter, and A. Mavroudi, “The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 110, 106395, 2021.
  13. H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Zhang, and R. Sunderraman, “Single valued neutrosophic sets,” Multispace and Multistructure, vol. 4, pp. 410–413, 2010.
  14. P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, “On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1245–1252, 2014, doi: 10.3233/IFS-130810.
  15. M. Abdel-Basset, A. Gamal, R. K. Chakrabortty, and M. Ryan, “Evaluation of sustainable hydrogen production options using an advanced hybrid MCDM approach: A case study,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 4567–4591, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.232.
  16. A. Gabus and E. Fontela, “World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL,” Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 12–14, 1972.
  17. M. Abdel-Basset, R. Mohamed, A. E. N. H. Zaied & F. Smarandache, “A hybrid plithogenic decision-making approach with quality function deployment for selecting supply chain sustainability metrics.” Symmetry, 11(7), 903, 2019.
  18. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets.” Information and control, 8(3), 338-353, 1965.
  19. D. Ju-Long, “Control problems of grey systems.” Systems & control letters, 1(5), 288-294, 1982.
  20. D. Sumrit and O. Jongprasittiphol, “Analyzing readiness factors for organizational disaster management in upstream automotive supply chains based on neutrosophic DEMATEL model,” Results in Engineering, vol. 25, 103000, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103000.
  21. T. A. Cordeiro, F. A. Ferreira, R. W. Spahr, M. A. Sunderman & N. C. “Ferreira, Enhanced planning capacity in urban renewal: Addressing complex challenges using neutrosophic logic and DEMATEL.” Cities, 150, 105006, 2024.
  22. Y. Çelikbilek, “Evaluation of the renewable energy sources with an integrated neutrosophic DEMATEL–ANP–VIKOR approach,” Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, vol. 44, no. 3, e14589, 2025, doi: 10.1002/ep.14589.
  23. H. Demirel, M. Karadağ, V. Başhan, Y. T. Mutlu, C. Kaya, M. Gul & E. Akyuz, “Hybrid Neutrosophic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Assessment of Energy Efficiency Enhancement Systems: Sustainable Ship Energy Management and Environmental Aspect”. Sustainability, 18(1), 166, 2025.
  24. M. Kılıç and A. Yalçın, “Comparison of municipalities considering environmental sustainability via neutrosophic DEMATEL based TOPSIS,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 75, 100827, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2020.100827.
  25. M. Abdel-Basset, A. Atef, and F. Smarandache, “A hybrid Neutrosophic multiple criteria group decision making approach for project selection,” Cognitive Systems Research, vol. 57, pp., 2019. 216–227, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.10.023.
  26. D. R. Bonifaz Díaz, L. R. Ramírez López, and L. P. Advendaño Castro, “Neutrosophic DEMATEL to prioritize risk factors in teenage pregnancy,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 37, pp. 215–221, 2020.
  27. I. Mamites et al., “Factors influencing teaching quality in universities: analyzing causal relationships based on neutrosophic DEMATEL,” Education Research International, vol. 2022, Article ID 9475254, 2022.
  28. T. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.
  29. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback, RWS Publications, 1996.
  30. M. Abdel-Basset, M. Mohamed, and F. Smarandache, “A hybrid neutrosophic group ANP–TOPSIS framework for supplier selection problems,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 226, 2018.
  31. A. N. H. Zaied, H. A. El-Ghareeb, and A. A. Saleh, “An integrated neutrosophic-ANP technique for supplier selection,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 29, pp. 120–136, 2019.
  32. N. A. Nabeeh, M. Abdel-Basset, H. A. El-Ghareeb, and A. Aboelfetouh, “Neutrosophic multi-criteria decision making approach for IoT-based enterprises,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 59559–59574, 2021.
  33. Y. Liu, C. M. Eckert, and C. Earl, “A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 161, 113738, 2022.
  34. S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, S. Alam, and T. K. Roy, “NC-TODIM-based MAGDM under a neutrosophic cubic set environment,” Information, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 35, 2021.
  35. M. V. Alava, S. P. D. Figueroa, H. M. B. Alcivar, and M. L. Vázquez, “Single valued neutrosophic numbers and analytic hierarchy process for project selection,” Infinite Study, 2018.