KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1

Sürdürülebilir teknoloji yönetimi kriterlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Bütünleşik çok kriterli bir yaklaşım

Evaluation of sustainable technology management criteria: An integrated multi-criteria approach

Harika Akalın, Yunus Eroğlu, Türkay Dereli

Sayfa
271–288
Yayın Tarihi
2026-02-20
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerinin artan önemi, teknoloji yönetimi süreçlerinin yalnızca ekonomik performans odaklı değil, çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal boyutları kapsayan bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele alınmasını zorunlu kılmıştır. Teknoloji, sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine ulaşmada kilit bir rol oynarken, sürecin etkin yönetimi uzun vadeli ve stratejik politikalar gerektirmektedir. Söz konusu politikaların geliştirilmesi ise çok paydaşlı bir katılımla, sürdürülebilirlik ilkelerinin teknoloji yönetimine entegrasyonunu gerekli kılmaktadır. Ancak mevcut literatürde, sürdürülebilirlik kriterlerini teknoloji yönetimi karar mekanizmalarına entegre eden yapılandırılmış karar modelleri sınırlı kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, sürdürülebilir teknoloji yönetimi (STY) kriterlerinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bütünleşik bir karar verme modeli sunmaktadır. Çalışma, Delphi–Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) bütünleşmesini STY kriterleri bağlamında ele alması ve kurumsal boyutu karar modeline sistematik ve ölçülebilir bir biçimde entegre etmesi bakımından literatürdeki özgün bir boşluğu doldurmaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk aşamasında, kapsamlı bir literatür taramasıyla aday kriterler belirlenmiş; ikinci aşamada ise bu kriterler, farklı paydaş gruplarını temsil eden bir uzman paneliyle yürütülen iki turlu Delphi süreci sonucunda kesinleştirilmiştir. Son aşamada ise nihai kriterlerin ağırlıkları AHS yöntemiyle hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular, kurumsal kriterin diğer kriterlere kıyasla baskın bir öncelik düzeyine sahip olduğunu; özellikle destek programları ve teşvikler alt kriterinin stratejik bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Önerilen model, politika yapıcılar ve karar vericiler için sistematik, uygulanabilir ve analitik bir karar destek çerçevesi sunmaktadır.

Abstract

The increasing importance of sustainability goals necessitates that technology management processes be addressed with a holistic approach encompassing environmental, social, and institutional dimensions, rather than focusing solely on economic performance. While technology plays a key role in achieving sustainable development goals, effective management of this process requires long-term, strategic policies. Developing these policies entails integrating sustainability principles into technology management through multi-stakeholder participation. However, existing literature remains limited in providing structured decision models that integrate sustainability criteria into technology management decision mechanisms. This study presents an integrated decision-making framework for evaluating Sustainable Technology Management (STM) criteria. The study fills a distinct gap in the literature by addressing the Delphi–Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integration within the context of STM criteria and systematically integrating the institutional dimension into the decision model in a measurable manner. In the first stage of the study, candidate criteria were identified through a comprehensive literature review; in the second stage, these criteria were finalized through a two-round Delphi process conducted with a panel of experts representing different stakeholder groups. In the final stage, the weights of the final criteria were calculated using the AHP method. The findings indicate that the institutional criteria hold a dominant priority compared to other criteria, with the support programs and incentives sub-criterion playing a particularly strategic role. The proposed model provides a systematic, applicable, and analytical decision-support framework for policymakers and decision-makers.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akalın, H., Eroğlu, Y., Dereli, T. (2026). Sürdürülebilir teknoloji yönetimi kriterlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Bütünleşik çok kriterli bir yaklaşım. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1795834

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

↗Yeni Sekme

PDF belgesi yükleniyor...

Kaynakça (87)

  1. 1. Brundtland, G.H, Our common future, World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, GB, 1987.
  2. 2. Todorović, M., Levi Jakšić, M., Marinković, S., Sustainable technology management indicators: Objectives matrix approach, African Journal of Business Management, 5 (28), 11386-11398, 2011.
  3. 3. Waris, M., Panigrahi, S., Mengal, A., Soomro, M.I., Mirjat, N.H., Ullah, M., Azlan, Z.S., Khan, A., An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Sustainable Procurement of Construction Equipment: Multicriteria-Based Decision Framework for Malaysia, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019 (1), 6391431, 2019.
  4. 4. Kuzma, E., Padilha, L.S., Sehnem, S., Julkovski, D.J., Roman, D.J., The relationship between innovation and sustainability: A meta-analytic study, Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120745, 2020.
  5. 5. Brent, A.C., Pretorius, M.W., Sustainable Development and Technology Management, World Scientific Book Chapters, 185-203, 2008.
  6. 6. Brent, A.C., Pretorius, M.W., A Conceptual Framework for the Technology Management Field of Knowledge and a Departure for Further Research, The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 19 (1), 31-52, 2008.
  7. 7. Cetindamar, D., Can, O., Pala, O., Technology Management Activities and Tools: The Practice in Turkey, 2006 Technology Management for the Global Future - PICMET 2006 Conference, Turkey, 92-98, 2006.
  8. 8. Martino, J.P., Technological Forecasting for Decision Making, North-Holland, 1983.
  9. 9. Nieto, M., Lopéz, F., Cruz, F., Performance analysis of technology using the S curve model: the case of digital signal processing (DSP) technologies, Technovation, 18 (6), 439-457, 1998.
  10. 10. Akalin H., Eroglu Y., Dereli T., A bibliometric analysis of sustainable technology management, LMSCM 2023 Call for Papers, Turkey, 154-163, 2023.
  11. 11. Ning, J., Zheng, Y., Yu, C., Li, Z., How to select green technology acquisition paths for enterprises: An analysis based on evolutionary game theory, Managerial and Decision Economics, 45 (7), 4552-4573, 2024.
  12. 12. Alawamleh, M., Abuqura, K., Would the employment of advanced technology and online presence help museums in the Middle East achieve their organizational goals? Museum Management and Curatorship, 39 (1), 87-105, 2024.
  13. 13. Wang, C., Liu, X., Shen, J., Global strategies for disruptive technology protection and regulation: evidence from policy textual analysis, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 37(12), 3096-3112, 2025.
  14. 14. Hong, T.-Y., Chien, C.-F., Chen, H.-P., UNISON framework of system dynamics-based technology acquisition decision for semiconductor manufacturing and an empirical study, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 177, 109012, 2023.
  15. 15. He, H., Tang, H., Guo, S., Technology acquisition strategy in the context of the Internet of Things using game theory, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36 (7), 1604-1620, 2024.
  16. 16. Zamani, M., Yalcin, H., Naeini, A.B., Zeba, G., Daim, T.U., Developing metrics for emerging technologies: identification and assessment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121456, 2022.
  17. 17. Erbay, H., Yıldırım, N., Combined Technology Selection Model for Digital Transformation in Manufacturing: A Case Study from the Automotive Supplier Industry, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 19 (07), 2250023, 2022.
  18. 18. Aldhaheri, M.A.M.M., Xia, B., Nepal, M., Identifying Key Selection Criteria for Smart Building Technologies in the United Arab Emirates Prisons, Buildings, 12 (8), 1171, 2022.
  19. 19. Othman, A., El Gazzar, S., Knez, M., Investigating the Influences of Smart Port Practices and Technology Employment on Port Sustainable Performance: The Egypt Case, Sustainability, 14 (21), 14014, 2022.
  20. 20. Park, H., Yoo, Y., Lee, H., 7S Model for Technology Protection of Organizations, Sustainability, 13 (13), 7020, 2021.
  21. 21. Golmohammadi, S., Kazerooni, H., Development of Technology Identification model focusing on Technology Intelligence and Components and Indicators extracted from Upstream Documents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, International Journal of Innovation in Engineering, 1 (4), 18-33, 2021.
  22. 22. Zdonek, D., Identification of technologies in Industry 4.0 with the use of text mining, Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska, z. 142, 2020.
  23. 23. Choi, J., Jun, S., Park, S., A Patent Analysis for Sustainable Technology Management, Sustainability, 8 (7), 688, 2016.
  24. 24. Kim, J., Lee, J., Kim, G., Park, S., Jang, D., A Hybrid Method of Analyzing Patents for Sustainable Technology Management in Humanoid Robot Industry, Sustainability, 8 (5), 474, 2016.
  25. 25. Park, S., Jun, S., Statistical Technology Analysis for Competitive Sustainability of Three Dimensional Printing, Sustainability, 9 (7), 1142, 2017.
  26. 26. Yoon, B., Shin, J., Lee, S., Technology assessment model for sustainable development of LNG terminals, Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 927-937, 2018.
  27. 27. Kim, J., Choi, J., Park, S., Jang, D., Patent Keyword Extraction for Sustainable Technology Management, Sustainability, 10 (4), 1287, 2018.
  28. 28. Jun, S., Bayesian Structural Time Series and Regression Modeling for Sustainable Technology Management, Sustainability, 11 (18), 4945, 2019.
  29. 29. Kim, J.-M., Yoon, J., Hwang, S.Y., Jun, S., Patent Keyword Analysis Using Time Series and Copula Models, Applied Sciences, 9 (19), 4071, 2019.
  30. 30. Musango, J.K., Brent, A.C., A conceptual framework for energy technology sustainability assessment, Energy for Sustainable Development, 15 (1), 84-91, 2011.
  31. 31. Belay, S., Goedert, J., Woldesenbet, A., Rokooei, S., A Hybrid Delphi-AHP Based Analysis of Construction Project - Specific Success Factors in Emerging Markets: The Case of Ethiopia, Cogent Engineering, 8 (1), 1891701, 2021.
  32. 32. Chavosh Nejad, M., Mansour, S., Karamipour, A., An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: A case study in banking industry, Technology in Society, 65, 101602, 2021.
  33. 33. Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning-A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8 (4), 365-381, 2004.
  34. 34. Ali-Toudert, F., Ji, L., Modeling and measuring urban sustainability in multi-criteria based systems-A challenging issue, Ecological Indicators, 73, 597-611, 2017.
  35. 35. Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R.K., Ryan, M., Development of a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainability evaluation of bioenergy production technologies: A case study, Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125805, 2021.
  36. 36. Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., Romero, C., Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review, European Journal of Operational Research, 258 (2), 607-616, 2017.
  37. 37. Sivarama Prasad, A.V., Somasekhara, N., The analytic hierarchy process for choice of technologies: An application, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38 (2), 151-158, 1990.
  38. 38. Yurdakul, M., Selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies using a combined analytic hierarchy process and goal programming model, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 20 (4), 329-340, 2004.
  39. 39. Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 169 (1), 1-29, 2006.
  40. 40. Santos, R.C., de Lima, E.P., Deschamps, F., da Costa, S.E.G., da Silva, E.R., Martinho, J.L., Selection of Manufacturing Technologies in the Context of Digital Transformation: A Systematic Review, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51 (1), 143-163, 2023.
  41. 41. Le Pira, M., Inturri, G., Ignaccolo, M., Pluchino, A., Modelling consensus building in Delphi practices for participated transport planning, Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 3725-3735, 2017.
  42. 42. Nguyen, T.A.V., Tucek, D., Pham, N.T., Indicators for TQM 4.0 model: Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34 (1-2), 220-234, 2023.
  43. 43. Islam, M.T., Huda, N., Reshaping WEEE management in Australia: An investigation on the untapped WEEE products, Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119496, 2020.
  44. 44. Hsu, C.-C., Sandford, B.A., The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus, Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 12(1), 2007.
  45. 45. Meesapawong, P., Rezgui, Y., Li, H., Planning innovation orientation in public research and development organizations: Using a combined Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process approach, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 87, 245-256, 2014.
  46. 46. Mousavi, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Heydar, M., Ebrahimnejad, S., Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Plant Location Selection: An Integrated Delphi–AHP–PROMETHEE Methodology, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 38 (5), 1255-1268, 2013.
  47. 47. Yenidünya S.S., Limoncu S., Cost effective design decision model for sustainable building renewal, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 39 (4), 2497-2514, 2024.
  48. 48. Sousa, M., Almeida, M.F., Calili, R., Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda, Sustainability, 13 (8), 4129, 2021.
  49. 49. Garcia-Berna, J.A., Fernandez-Aleman, J.L., Carrillo de Gea, J.M., Nicolas, J., Moros, B., Toval, A., Mancebo, J., Garcia, F., Calero, C., Green IT and sustainable technology development: Bibliometric overview, Sustainable Development, 27 (4), 613-636, 2019.
  50. 50. D’Adamo, I., Della Sciucca, M., Gastaldi, M., Lupi, B., Indicator Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Perspective, Sustainability, 17 (18), 8259, 2025.
  51. 51. Londoño-Pineda, A., Cano, J.A., Gómez-Montoya, R., Application of AHP for the Weighting of Sustainable Development Indicators at the Subnational Level, Economies, 9 (4), 169, 2021.
  52. 52. Alkan, N., Kahraman, C., Prioritization of Human-Centric and Sustainable City Criteria by Proportional Spherical Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, Symmetry, 17 (2), 204, 2025.
  53. 53. Gaziulusoy, A.I., Boyle, C.A., McDowall, R., A conceptual systemic framework proposal for sustainable technology development: incorporating future studies within a co-evolutionary approach, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25 (4), 301-311, 2008.
  54. 54. Cato, M.S., Green Economics, Green economics: an introduction to theory, policy and practice, Routledge, 2012.
  55. 55. Mebratu, D., Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18 (6), 493-520, 1998.
  56. 56. Maaßen, C., Lopez, T., Urbano, D., Institutional enablers for sustainable entrepreneurship: a configurational analysis, Small Business Economics, 1-22, 2025.
  57. 57. Lozano, R., Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (17), 1838-1846, 2008.
  58. 58. Mahmoud, T., Balachandran, W., Altayyar, S., Advancing Sustainable Healthcare Technology Management: Developing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment Framework with a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process, Integrating External and Internal Factors in the Gulf Region, Sustainability, 16 (18), 8197, 2024.
  59. 59. Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J.H., A guide to community sustainability indicators, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 (3), 381-392, 2000.
  60. 60. Turoff, M., The design of a policy Delphi, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2 (2), 149-171, 1970.
  61. 61. Linstone, H. A, Turoff, M., The Delphi Method, Addison-Wesley, 3-12, 1975.
  62. 62. Negash, Y.T., Hassan, A.M., Construction Project Success under Uncertainty: Interrelations among the External Environment, Intellectual Capital, and Project Attributes, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146 (10), 05020012, 2020.
  63. 63. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O., An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts, Management Science, 9 (3), 458-467, 1963.
  64. 64. Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D., The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications, Information & Management, 42 (1), 15-29, 2004.
  65. 65. Loo, R., The Delphi method: a powerful tool for strategic management, Policing: An International Journal, 25 (4), 762-769, 2002.
  66. 66. Chen, H.-L., Hu, Y.-C., Lee, M.-Y., Yen, G.-F., Importance of Employee Care in Corporate Social Responsibility: An AHP-Based Study from the Perspective of Corporate Commitment, Sustainability, 12 (15), 5885, 2020.
  67. 67. Ghasemi, M., Ghanavati, E., Kazemi, J., Identifying the most effective geosite evaluation models in Iran using Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process methods, Quaestiones Geographicae, 40 (3), 21-31, 2021.
  68. 68. Shao, W.-C., Chen, J.-W., Dong, Y.-W., Lu, C.-L., Chiou, Y.-T., Developing Indicators for Healthy Building in Taiwan Using Fuzzy Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process, Buildings, 13 (7), 1860, 2023.
  69. 69. Somerville, J., Critical Factors Affecting the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes: A Delphi Study of the Opinions of Community College Personnel, Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 15 (2), 9-19, 2008.
  70. 70. Dalkey, N., An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method, Futures, 1 (5), 408-426, 1969.
  71. 71. Keeney, S., McKenna, H.P., Hasson, F., The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  72. 72. Mullen, P.M., Delphi: myths and reality, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17 (1), 37-52, 2003.
  73. 73. Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W.M., Wong, J.K.W., Chan, A.P.C., Barriers to the integration of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey of international experts, Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 60-71, 2018.
  74. 74. Alshehri, S.A., Rezgui, Y., Li, H., Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster, Natural Hazards, 75 (3), 2221-2245, 2015.
  75. 75. Woudenberg, F., An evaluation of Delphi, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40 (2), 131-150, 1991.
  76. 76. von der Gracht, H.A., Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79 (8), 1525-1536, 2012.
  77. 77. Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., von der Gracht, H.A., Schmidt, S.L., Schweitzer, V.M., Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements, MethodsX, 8, 101401, 2021.
  78. 78. Murphy, M.K., Black, N.A., Lamping, D.L., McKee, C.M., Sanderson, C.F., Askham, J., Marteau, T., Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development, Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 2 (3), i-iv, 1-88, 1998.
  79. 79. Courtenay, M., Deslandes, R., Harries-Huntley, G., Hodson, K., Morris, G., Classic e-Delphi survey to provide national consensus and establish priorities with regards to the factors that promote the implementation and continued development of non-medical prescribing within health services in Wales, BMJ Open, 8 (9), e024161, 2018.
  80. 80. Adje, M., Steinhäuser, J., Stevenson, K., Mbada, C., Alonge, V., Karstens, S., Developing tailored intervention strategies for implementation of stratified care to low back pain with physiotherapists in Nigeria: a Delphi study, BMC Health Services Research, 23 (1), 134, 2023.
  81. 81. Saaty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process, Management science, 26 (7), 641-658, 1980.
  82. 82. Saaty, T.L., How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9-26, 1990.
  83. 83. Aşchilean, I., Badea, G., Giurca, I., Naghiu, G.S., Iloaie, F.G., Choosing the Optimal Technology to Rehabilitate the Pipes in Water Distribution Systems Using the AHP Method, Energy Procedia, 112, 19-26, 2017.
  84. 84. Saaty, T.L., Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83, 2008.
  85. 85. Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, D.F., The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 2, 2012.
  86. 86. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem, International Journal of Technology Management, 46 (3-4), 201-234, 2009.
  87. 87. Jägerbrand, A.K., New Framework of Sustainable Indicators for Outdoor LED (Light Emitting Diodes) Lighting and SSL (Solid State Lighting), Sustainability, 7 (1), 1028-1063, 2015.