Selection of electric motors for automated guided vehicles within the framework of technology management

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 77 - 98, 31.12.2025

Kamil Bircan

https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1809793

Abstract

This study examines the electric motor selection process of a research and development (R&D)-focused automatic guided vehicle (AGV) manufacturer within the framework of the Technology Management Model, evaluating the impact of technological decision-making on strategic competitiveness. As one of the core activities of technology management, technology selection was analyzed using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. The technical and sustainability-based criteria identified in the study were weighted using the FUCOM (Full Consistency Method), and alternative motor manufacturers were evaluated through the PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations) approach. The findings indicate that sustainability-oriented criteria play a decisive role in technology selection, revealing that companies prioritize not only technical performance but also social and environmental sustainability dimensions. The results show that suppliers with strong sustainability practices and high technical competence achieve higher competitive positions, demonstrating the growing importance of integrating sustainability into technological choices. Overall, the study emphasizes that technology selection should not be limited to technical compatibility but should also incorporate sustainability, governance, and integration factors within a holistic technology management perspective. By highlighting the strategic value of combining sustainability with technological capability, this research contributes to the literature by underlining that integrating sustainability principles into technology management enhances long-term competitiveness and organizational adaptability.

Keywords

Technology Management , Sustainability in Manufacturing , FUCOM , PROMETHEE

References

• Akçay, Ü. (2018). Neoliberal populism in Turkey and its crisis (Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy. Working Paper Series No. 100).
• Asikhia, O. A., Magaji, N., & Muritala, A. S. (2019). Technological intelligence and organisational performance: moderating role of process innovation. Open Journal of Economics and Commerce, 2(1), 25–31.
• Ayçin, E., & Aşan, H. (2021). İş zekası uygulamaları seçimindeki kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının FUCOM yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.903563
• Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
• Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note–A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
• Brans, J.-P., & De Smet, Y. (2016). PROMETHEE Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (pp. 187–219). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_6
• Brans, J.-P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). Promethee Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (Vol. 78, pp. 163–186). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
• Brans, J., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5
• Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2016). Logistic firm selection for medical waste management. 5th National Logistics and Supply Chain Congress, 837–844.
• Coquelet, B., Dejaegere, G., & De Smet, Y. (2025). Evaluating the Promethee ii Ranking Quality. Algorithms, 18(10), 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18100597
• Dağdeviren, M., & Eraslan, E. (2008). PROMETHEE Sıralama Yöntemi ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Der., 23(1), 69–75.
• Ergün Bülbül, S., & Köse, A. (2016). Türk sigorta sektörünün PROMETHEE yöntemi ile finansal performans analizi. İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(1), 187. https://doi.org/10.14780/iibd.29194
• Genç, T. (2013). PROMETHEE Yöntemi ve GAIA Düzlemi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 15(1), 133–154.
• Gregory, M. J. (1995). Technology Management: A Process Approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 209(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1243/pime_proc_1995_209_094_02
• Güngör, N. (2021). İç Denetimde Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Siber Güvenlik. Gazi Kitabevi.
• Kalender, F. Y., & Aygün, F. (2019). Promethee Sıralama Yöntemi İle Yatırım Projesi Değerlendirme ve Üretim Sektöründe Uygulanması. Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 183–208.
• Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. Sage Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576
• Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00153-x
• Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019). Big Data Analytics Capabilities and Innovation: The Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Moderating Effect of the Environment. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 272–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12343
• Murat, S., Kazan, H., & Coskun, S. S. (2015). An Application for Measuring Performance Quality of Schools by Using the PROMETHEE Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.344
• Özdemir, M. (2017). Educational Augmented Reality (AR) Applications and Development Process. In Mobile Technologies and Augmented Reality in Open Education (pp. 26–53). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2110-5.ch002
• Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
• Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Companies. Harvard Business Review, 93, 1–37.
• Seyidoğlu, H. (2017). Uluslararası İktisat Teori Politikası ve Uygulaması. Güzem Can Yayınları.
• Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
• Yıldırım, Ö. C., Özer, D. G., & Sungur, A. (2021). Route Generator for Integrating Cultural Heritage to Smart City: Ontheroute. In Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection (pp. 165–177). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73043-7_14