## 5 Results and Discussion
Technologies at the bottom of the list, such as L43, L13, L34, L62, or L41, despite their lower position, may still serve complementary or specialized roles depending on the context of implementation. In the ranking of transformation spheres, the top positions are occupied by K1 and K2, related to automation, digitalization, and process optimization in the spirit of Industry 4.0. A surprisingly high position is also achieved by K6, which represents the dimension of systemic resilience--a key component of Industry 5.0. The differentiation of values in Table 5 indicates that not all transformation areas have an equal impact according to expert evaluations, which can help companies define investment and technology priorities. In the next stage of the PROMETHEE II study, experts evaluated the extent to which each of the 22 technologies studied (L11-L64) contributes to the achievement of objectives within three key perspectives in assessing industrial transformation: U1--economic; U2--organizational (process-oriented); U3--technological. The evaluations were conducted using a five-point scale (where 5 meant very strong impact). The average values are presented in Table 6, allowing the identification of those technologies considered the most universal and strategic for the development of industrial enterprises. The consistency of expert assessments in this stage was further analysed using the Kendall coefficient of concordance \((W)\). For the same group of 11 experts and 22 technologies, the coefficient value was obtained as \(W=0.79\), with \(S=100,734\), indicating a high level of agreement regarding the impact of the technology on the implementation of new solutions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Modern Technology Notation** & \(W_{i}\) & **Ranking** \\ \hline L33 & 48.135 & 10 \\ L31 & 44.085 & 11 \\ L45 & 43.627 & 12 \\ L32 & 43.347 & 13 \\ L51 & 43.320 & 14 \\ L44 & 40.683 & 15 \\ L21 & 39.406 & 16 \\ L53 & 39.263 & 17 \\ L41 & 39.044 & 18 \\ L62 & 36.237 & 19 \\ L34 & 35.957 & 20 \\ L13 & 35.384 & 21 \\ L43 & 34.475 & 22 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Industry Area Notation** & \(W_{i}\) & **Ranking** \\ \hline K1 & 18.126 & 1 \\ K2 & 17.621 & 2 \\ K6 & 17.179 & 3 \\ K5 & 16.124 & 4 \\ K3 & 15.592 & 5 \\ K4 & 15.358 & 6 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Ranking of Industry 4.0/5.0 areas. The resulting values were \(W=0.60\) for DEMATEL and \(W=0.79\) for PROMETHEE II. According to commonly accepted interpretative thresholds in MCDM research, a value of \(W>0.70\) typically indicates strong agreement, while values between 0.50 and 0.70 reflect moderate agreement, considered sufficiently reliable for strategic assessments. In this context, the obtained values confirm that the expert judgments were sufficiently consistent to ensure the credibility of the aggregated results. It should be emphasized that these evaluations were collected using a separate assessment form, independent of the form used in the DEMATEL analysis. Maintaining methodological separation between data sources enables the triangulation of results, thereby enhancing the credibility and transparency of the applied multi-criteria decision-making approach [85]. Such a procedure is of significant importance when making strategic technology-related decisions in the context of long-term transformation. The results presented in Table 6 indicate that technologies L12 (Cybersecurity), L11 (Internet of Things (IoT)), L42 (Hyper-Personalized Production), and L52 (Renewable Energy and Smart Grids) obtained the highest average scores in all three perspectives (marked in bold in Table 6). This suggests that these technologies are perceived as strategically critical from the points of view of both economic efficiency (U1) and the improvement of organizational processes (U2), as well as the development of technological potential (U3).