TEDARİK ZİNCİRİ ALANYAZINI ROTASI: LİSANSÜSTÜ ÇALIŞMALARIN EVRİMİ

Bu çalışmada tedarik zinciri alan yazınının zaman içerisindeki evriminin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla çalışmada, Türkiye’de yazılmış ve başlığında “tedarik zinciri” ifadesi geçen 461 adet tezin genel durumu sosyal ağ analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Tezlerin 354'ü yüksek lisans ve 107'si doktora tezidir. Analiz neticesinde en çok kullanılan anahtar kelimenin “performans değerlendirme” olduğu görülmüştür. “Lojistik sektörü”, “risk yönetimi” ve “yeşil tedarik zinciri yönetimi” anahtar kelimelerinin izlediği gözlemlenmiştir. İlgili alanda en çok teze sahip olan üniversitenin İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca çalışılan konuların seyrini görebilmek için dönemsel olarak analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. 1999-2003 dönemi incelendiğinde bilişim teknolojilerinin çalışmalarda ön planda olduğu tespit edilmiştir. 2004-2008 dönemi incelendiğinde çalışmaların ağırlıklı olarak lojistik sektörü üzerine olduğu bulgusu elde edilmiştir. 2009-2013 dönemi incelendiğinde tedarik zinciri ağı ve işletme performansı kavramları ön plana çıkmaktadır. 2014-2018 dönemi incelendiğinde performans değerlendirme, yeşil tedarik zinciri yönetimi ve risk yönetimi kavramlarının ön planda olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır.

THE ROUTE OF SUPPLY CHAIN LITERATURE: THE EVOLUTION OF GRADUATE STUDIES

In this study, it is aimed to reveal the evolution of supply chain literature over time. For this purpose, 461 theses written in Turkey and included "supply chain" in the title were analyzed by social network analysis in this study. Of the theses, 354 are master and 107 are doctoral dissertations. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the most used keyword was “performance evaluation”. The “logistics sector”, “risk management” and “green supply chain management” keywords followed. It is found that the university which has the most thesis in the related field is Istanbul Technical University. In addition, periodical analyzes were performed in order to see the progress of the subjects studied. When the period of 1999-2003 is examined, it is determined that information technologies are at the forefront in the studies. When the period of 2004-2008 is examined, it is found that the studies are mainly on the logistics sector. When the period of 2009- 2013 is examined, the concepts of supply chain network and business performance come to the fore. When the period of 2014-2018 is examined, it is found that the concepts of performance evaluation, green supply chain management and risk management are at the forefront.

Kaynakça

Bonacich, P., & Schneider, S. (1992). Communication networks and collective action. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), International series in experimental social psychology. Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 225-245). Pergamon Press. New York.

Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo, B., & Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 135-144.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 345-423.

Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering Gephi network visualization: produce advanced network graphs in Gephi and gain valuable insights into your network datasets. Birmingham: Packt publishing.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges; diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

De Solla Price, D.J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American psychologist, 21(11), 1011-1018.

Degenne, A., ve Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. Sage.

Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of informetrics, 5(1), 187- 203.

Everett, M. G., ve Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Extending centrality. Models and methods in social network analysis, 35(1), 57-76.

Fenner, T., Levene, M., Loizou, G., & Roussos, G. (2007). A stochastic evolutionary growth model for social networks. Computer Networks, 51(16), 4586-4595.

Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 35-41.

Garfield, E., & Merton, R. K. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities (Vol. 8). New York: Wiley.

Gürsakal, N. (2009). Sosyal ağ analizi. Dora Yayıncılık: Bursa.

Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, USA

Lee, K.-H. ve Vachon, S. (2016). Business Value and Sustainability. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-43576-7.

McFadyen, M. A., ve Cannella, A. A. 2004. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735-746.

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 98(2), 404- 409.

Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200-5205.

Rodriguez, M. A., & Pepe, A. (2008). On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a coauthorship network. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 195-201.

Ross, D. F. (2003). Introduction to e-supply chain management: engaging technology to build market-winning business partnerships. Boca Raton, Fla: St. Lucie Press.

Soni, G. ve Kodali, R. (2012). A critical review of empirical research methodology in supply chain management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(6), 753-779. doi:10.1108/17410381211253326

Tsvetovat, M., ve Kouznetsov, A. (2011). Social Network Analysis for Startups: Finding connections on the social web. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

Van Raan, A. F. (2005). Measuring science. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19-50). Springer

Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press: Washington

Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. Sociological theory, 1, 155-200.

https://apps.webofknowledge.com/CitationReport.do?product=WOS&search_m ode=CitationReport&SID=F4eD5v6fC1rVr1FxNtO&page=1&cr_pqi d=2&viewType=summary

Kaynak Göster