Objectives: Given significant issues such as globalization, the creation of a competitive environment, and government downsizing, the need for privatization feasibility studies in our country has become increasingly evident. Previous studies have primarily focused on the efficiency and economic aspects of privatization. This research aims to examine the financial and non-financial criteria and factors influencing privatization to propose an optimal privatization model based on these criteria.

Methodology: This study employs the Delphi method and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), utilizing purposive, explanatory, and exploratory approaches to determine privatization patterns with an emphasis on financial and non-financial factors. Data collection involved a combination of previous studies and information gathered through the Delphi technique from managers and policymakers in privatization organizations.

Findings: Six key criteria for privatization were identified: economic factors, financial and accounting criteria, political factors, private sector development, government performance, and cultural and public dimensions. A hierarchical approach was used to create a tree structure, evaluate options based on criteria, and assess the criteria based on the objective function. The Expert Choice software was then utilized for prioritization and the development of an optimal model.

Conclusion: Based on theoretical studies and data collected from privatization organization experts, the results from pairwise comparison questionnaires indicate that political factors rank highest among privatization components with a score of 0.226, requiring the most attention from experts. Economic factors (0.202) rank second, followed by cultural and public dimensions (0.191), financial and accounting criteria (0.171), private sector development (0.119), and finally, government performance (0.084) in the prioritization of privatization components with an emphasis on financial and non-financial factors. The consistency ratio of 0.007 falls within the acceptable range.

Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) results, combined with reanalyzing the study’s findings, introduced a three-tier model for privatization components. Political factors were positioned at the highest level, followed by economic factors, financial and accounting criteria, and private sector development in the second level. Government performance and cultural and public dimensions were categorized in the third level. The distinction between ISM and hierarchical analysis is that ISM seeks to develop an optimal model, whereas hierarchical analysis focuses on determining the priority of each criterion. These findings have the potential to influence decision-making in the private sector, and prioritizing financial and non-financial privatization components could lead to shifts in current decision-making approaches for privatization.