## 4 Discussion  
In industrial plants, among others, there are dominant challenges in material handling processes that significantly affect the realization of the basic and supporting activities of companies. In this paper, the problem of selecting the best technology for handling bulk materials has been solved for a factory in Serbia. This paper aims to eliminate the identified gaps in the industrial plant by selecting the best technology according to a defined criteria. Following these criteria and the data from our case study, alternative solutions have been ranked in this paper to increase the efficiency of the container loading process. A1 would be the most suitable option for container loading operations and replacing the existing technology. The use of A1 would bring numerous benefits, such as increased productivity, reduced risk of employee injury, and improved resource utilization. Additional advantages that can be gleaned from A1 include its facilitation of easier and more cost-effective material handling and loading into containers; its fast and simple installation; the fact that a small amount of space is required for its installation; and the fact that it quickly adapts to changes in layout. All the advantages brought by the deployment of A1 would lead to a more efficient execution of customer requests than the existing system. After A1, the second alternative is A3. Although it provides relatively high productivity, this alternative requires high investments and provides a lower degree of flexibility when changing the layout compared to A1. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [65] analyzed the use of screw, belt, and pneumatic conveyors for handling coal in the mining industry. For this set task, the belt conveyor was the best solution, while the pneumatic conveyor was ranked as the worst one, mostly attributed to the investment associated with its use. Unlike A1, A3 has a partially closed construction that leads to a low level of dust in the working environment. Given the very construction of A3, major failures that generate significant costs and downtime in the system can occur. [PERSON] [3] considered which type of conveyor was best for overcoming height differences. He compared belt, elevator, and vertical conveyors. For the given conditions, the elevator conveyor placed second. A2 placed third because, first of all, it requires very high investments in automation. Additional limitations of A2 include its open structure and lack of flexibility when changing the layout of the plant. The vital advantage of A2 is its elimination of manpower, which thus provides more safety for employees, but this does not compensate for all its disadvantages. In last place is A4, which was somewhat expected. Disadvantages regarding the dustiness of the working environment and a lack of flexibility are just some of the disadvantages of the A4. The final rank of A4 is dominantly influenced by the fact that it is unable to actively capture the  
Figure 3: Validation of the obtained solution. material, thus requiring the deployment of auxiliary equipment and additional manpower. [PERSON] et al. [19] identified the belt conveyor as the optimal solution, surpassing chain, roller, and gravity conveyors in handling fodder production processes. The chosen solution was notably influenced by material characteristics. This paper introduces a novel MCDM model that combines Fuzzy SWARA and ADAM methods, and this is the paper's primary contribution. Fuzzy SWARA establishes relative criterion weights, while the ADAM method ranks alternatives. Motivated by the intricate nature of the observed case study, which involved diverse and conflicting criteria groups, the necessity for a multi-criteria analysis was apparent. Fuzzy SWARA was chosen for its user-friendly nature, rationality, and efficient application. It accommodates individual and group decision making, necessitates a minimal number of criterion comparisons, and exhibits high flexibility.