## 4 Discussion  
Although ELECTRE I focused primarily on classifying multiple variables into effective and ineffective, it is likely that only Variable 1 will succeed, dismissing other alternatives as inefficient. This outcome is highly dependent on the concordance and discordance thresholds, which provide the background for the technique. The thresholds for ELECTRE I were calculated using the arithmetic mean. The resulting values were used to compile the \(p\) matrix for evaluating the variables. Even with ELECTRE I, an overwhelmingly dominant alternative for the propulsion system could be determined. It was anticipated that ELECTRE I would classify the variables into \"effective\" and \"ineffective\", leaving PROMETHEE II to find a compromise among the remaining options. PROMETHEE II shows that Ford strongly outperforms Renault, VW, and Opel, losing only to Peugeot. In the case of Electre I, however, it cannot be clearly stated that Peugeot is superior to Ford. The method addresses parameter weights, and its results comply with the preferences and requirements of K-plyn Ltd. The findings can be interpreted as follows:  
While PROMETHEE II identified a compromise alternative, its steps and principles were inconsistent and did not clarify whether the ranking and compromise matched the previous technique. ELECTRE I suggests that Ford outperforms all other alternatives except for Peugeot, indicating an overwhelmingly dominant variable and ranking Ford E-Transit as the best vehicle. PROMETHEE II defines a compromise, ranking the options in descending order. This method categorized all the analyzed vans, providing the company with more valuable findings. Evaluation of the outcomes based on both methods applied as follows:  
* ELECTRE I--Ford is the best (compromise) option, whereby in Figure 6 below, a directed graph of preferences (so-called dominance graph) according to the matrix \(p\) in terms of the ELECTRE I method, which can be interpreted as follows:  
1. FORD is a dominant choice because it has arrows pointing to multiple variants (RENAULT, VW, OPEL),
2. PEUGEOT dominates over OPEL,
3. OPEL is stronger than RENAULT,
4. RENAULT and VW are the worst ones because arrows point to them, but they do not send out any. * PROMETHEE II--ranks the vans from the best to the worst as follows (see Figure 7 as well):  
1. Ford,
2. Opel,
3. Peugeot,
4. Volkswagen,
5. Renault. The increased demand, unstable market conditions, and the global chip shortage, recently hindering global automotive production, have led to a scarcity of specific vehicle models. These complications resulted in extended waiting times, prolonged unavailability, or even the complete removal of certain models from the market. PROMETHE II advises potential buyers to consider purchasing an e-vehicle when no compromise is possible. The findings provide valuable insight to the company, identifying the best option available on the market, even when only two alternatives compared are available. Recommendations for further research include:  
* Deeper analysis of environmental impacts: extending the research by analyzing the emission cycle to assess the environmental benefit of e-van models, including the manufacturing and recycling of batteries;
* Comparison with other alternative fuels: analyzing and comparing e-vans with vehicles powered by different fuels in terms of eco-efficiency and sustainability, including hydrogen and hybrid technologies;
* Economic aspects: analyzing operating costs, maintenance, and recharging of e-vans compared to traditional diesel models in localities with varied infrastructure;  
Figure 6: Dominance graph of preferences by the ELECTRE I method. Figure 7: The comparative graph by the PROMETHE II method.