Published Aug 12, 2015
Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi Bilqis Bolanle Amole


Policy and strategies in the growing Nigerian telecommunications industry can only have significant impact if they are substantially driven by research on what subscribers prefer and why they prefer it? Thus, there is a need for an operations research model (AHP) to evaluate customer preferences for their mobile telecommunications attributes in order to direct policy and strategies toward what is important to subscribers. This paper built a hierarchical model for choice/determinant of subscriber’s preferences for mobile telecommunications attributes in Nigeria using seven main attributes as the criteria for evaluation.  The four main players in the Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) market (MTN, Airtel, Glo and Etisalat) are the alternatives. An AHP based questionnaire was administered among students of tertiary institutions in Lagos. Out of the four hundred questionnaires distributed, three hundred and eighty six were completed, returned and found suitable for the analysis. The data was analysed, considering the set of evaluation criteria (service attributes), and a set of alternative (network providers) scenarios from which the best decision was to be made. We generated a weight for each evaluation criterion and scenario according to the information provided by the decision makers (stakeholders). AHP was used to combine the objective and scenario evaluations to determine the ranking for scenarios. The results revealed that an average student preferred network providers with low rates (affordable), followed by quality of connections and a reliable data plan for internet service. A priority was done for the criteria to direct strategic decisions in the telecommunication industry towards meeting subscriber’s needs.  Coverage was not given significant priority as the respondents assumed that all providers have similar coverage. The results of this study will help improve the quality of decision making by stakeholders.

How to Cite

Oyatoye, E. O., Adebiyi, S. O., & Amole, B. B. (2015). EVALUATING SUBSCRIBERS PREFERENCE FOR SERVICE ATTRIBUTES OF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION IN NIGERIA USING ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.299


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 2510 | PDF Downloads 256



AHP, subscribers, preference, service attributes’, telecommunication

Crawford, G., Williams, C., (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387–405.

Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 4, 406-420.

Keeny, R.L. and Raiffa, H (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: Wiley.

Oyatoye E.O, Adebiyi S.O and B. B, Amole (2013a). An empirical study on consumers preference for mobile telecommunication attributes in Nigeria, British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 3(4), 419-428.

Oyatoye E.O, Adebiyi S.O and B. B, Amole (2013b). An application of conjoint analysis to consumer preference for beverage products in Nigeria, ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS, OECONOMICA, 9(6), 43-56.

Saaty, T.L., (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). Analytical Hierarchy Process planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper - remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 259-268.

Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43.

Saaty, T.L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors; the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process, RACSAM, 102(2), 251-318.

Sattler, H. and Hensel-Börner, S. A (2000). Comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer, 121- 133.

Sato, Y., (2001). The impact on scaling on the pair-wise comparison of the analytic hierarchy process. The Proceeding on the Sixth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 421–430.

Silva, H.A., Alver, L.H.D. and Marins, F.A.S. (2009). Using AHP to evaluate the performance of the quality, environment, occupational health and safety management systems, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process Multi-criteria Decision Making, July 29 - August 1 2009, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Vargas, L.G., (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 2–8.

Yoon, K.P. and Hwang C.L. (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision Making – An introduction. California: Sage Publication.