International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)

Available online at: http://euroasiapub.org/current.php?title=IJRFM

Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397

COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TELECOMMUNICATION SECTOR IN KENYA USING PORTERS FIVE FORCES MODEL

Osman Wechuli Chesula1,

Department of Business Administration,
Kenya Methodist University and Member of Faculty RAF International University

Stephen Ntuara Kiriinya2,

Department of Business Administration,
The Technical University of Kenya

ABSTRACT:
Purpose - The Telecommunication sector in Kenya is one of the main drivers of the Economy. This paper seeks to use
Porter’s Five Forces Model to empirically review the competitive structure of the industry and extract key insights for
strategically marketing the key payers.
Design/methodology/approach - The paper empirically reviews important data from publications, published interviews,
and Regulatory Authorities reports on the industry. Porter’s five forces model is then used to analyze the competitiveness
of the industry.
Findings – Porters five forces model offers both positive and negative impact to the players in the industry. Companies
with less market share are affected the most as they struggle to match the market leaders. The impact of the five forces
model is vital for the formulation of business competitive strategies by players in the telecommunication industry; however
its limitations pose a research gap which warrant further empirical review or statistical field research.
Originality/value – This paper is the first to provide a comprehensive review of the competitiveness in the
telecommunication industry in Kenya with the employment of porters five forces model. It is also one of the few proposed
studies that can give valuable insight and guidelines for top mobile service provider managers to establish appropriate
competitive and survival strategies effectively in Kenya. The paper not only validates theory with reality, but it also provides
a reference for the academic as well as the business world.

Keyword (s): Telecommunications sector, Porters five forces model, Safaricom, Airtel, Telkom.

1.0 Introduction

Effective marketing strategy requires that firms understand their industry in order to establish good competitive strategies.
Competition is one of the most inevitable issues in today’s business world. Irrespective of a firm’s size, it has competitors
in the industry and the strategies of these competitors affect the process of formulating strategic plan for the company.
Competitors represent a major determinant of corporate success, and failure of a company. To analyze industry
competitiveness may lead to suboptimal performance in the business. It is crucial for firm’s strategy formulation and
implementation as well as competitive preparation (Man, Lau, & Chan, 2002).

As most of the managers acknowledge the importance of understanding their industry and competitors, there is a growing
interest to use various competitive analysis techniques one of them being Michael Porters five forces model to help
formulate and implement strategy (Sohel, Rahman, & Uddin, 2014). Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model provides an ideal
mechanism and framework to study the Kenyan telecommunications industry’s competitive structure. The framework of

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 1
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

the model covers every aspect of Kenya’s Telecommunication sector and hence the results are more likely to give a true
insight of the competitiveness within the sector.

1.1 Overview of Telecommunication Sector in Kenya

Electronic communications networks are widely regarded as the backbone of the information society critical to the growth
of the economy (Stephane Piot, 2018). A lot of changes have been experienced in the telecommunications sector worldwide
in the past decade. Between 2008 and 2010, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) services became cheaper,
the price of high-speed internet and that of mobile cellular services dropped, a transformation which has brought great
benefit to consumers (Parkes & Teltscher, 2011).

Despite Kenya being ranked position 129 in the Global ICT Development Index (IDI) released in 2016 at the World
Telecommunication Indicators Symposium, in Gaborone Botswana, In Africa, Kenya is still ranked position nine after
Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Cape Verde, Botswana, Ghana, Namibia and Gabon. Kenya boosts better mobile
penetration in the East African region. The Communications Authority of Kenya (2015) reported that the total number of
mobile subscriptions is at 34.79 million. Safaricom accounted for the lion’s share of total wireless customers of 23.35
million which is 67.1%, followed by Airtel Kenya with a market share of 7.02 million which is 20.2% and Telkom Kenya
(Orange) which is 3.77 million wireless users which is 10.8%. The market’s only mobile virtual network operator (MVNO),
Finserve Africa (Equitel), had signed up a total of 665,661 customers which is 1.9% of the total wireless sector. Mobile data
subscriptions is at 18.68 million over the twelve-month period, with Safaricom accounting for 12.15 million of the total,
followed by Airtel with 3.45 million, Telkom with 2.42 million and newcomer Finserve Africa (Equitel) with
665,661(Afande, 2015; Macharia, 2017).

2.0 Literature Review

A review of existing scholarly articles and books on porters five forces model enables to bring out the significance of the
model as well as some of the weaknesses or challenge associated with its application in analyzing industry competitiveness
with an aim of relating the same to Kenya’s Telecommunication sector for the benefit of all the players in the sector and
the also for the benefit of industry policy makers.

2.1 Porters’ Five Forces Model

The most significant and influential analytical tool for assessing the nature of competition in an industry according to many
scholars is, Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model (Jorgensen, 2008; Stonehouse & Snowdon, 2007). With the introduction of
the Five Forces Model, Porter presented his arguments that competition in any industry is not only between explicit
industry players which we refer to as rivals, market players, industry competitors or competing businesses but goes well
beyond that. He presented a model which provides a view of all competitive forces which create pressures on prices, costs,
the rate of investment and other strategies necessary to compete in the industry (Porter, 1979, 1985, 1989).

The model focuses on five forces that shape the competition within an industry: (a) the threat of new entry, (b) the threat
of substitutes, (c) the bargaining power of buyers, (d) the bargaining power of suppliers, and (e) the extent of rivalry
between competitors within an industry (C. Hill; Porter, 2008). On the basis of analyzing the five forces, Porter argues that
an organization can develop a generic competitive strategy of differentiation or cost leadership, capable of delivering
superior performance through an appropriate configuration and coordination of its value chain activities (Stonehouse &
Snowdon, 2007).

2.2 Limitations of the Model

Even though (Porter, 2000), alluded to the fact that the model helps a company assess the potential profitability of a

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 2
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

particular industry, (Mauri & Michaels, 1998; Rumelt, 1991) argue that the profitability does not depend on industry-wide
factors; firm-specific factors such as unique endowment, individual competence, and strategies are more important to the
profitability of the business. The Porter model also indicates that five forces apply equally to all firms in an industry but in
reality the strength of those forces may vary from business to business in terms of size or strength of brand name
(Stonehouse & Snowdon, 2007).

2.3 Application of Porters Five Forces Model in Kenya’s Telecommunication Sector

To effectively analyze the competitiveness of the telecommunication sector in Kenya, each of the five forces identified by
Michael Porter shall be analyzed separately. This is to ensure that a depth empirical review is undertaken. The Key players
that form part of the units of analysis are the major mobile service providers. Thus; Safaricom public Limited, Aitel Limited,
Finserve Africa (Equitel) and Telkom Limited and Essar mobile (Yu).

Threat of New Entrants in Telecommunication Sector

Porter argues that the threat of new entrants into an industry is related to the barriers
to entry that exist within the industry and geographic boundaries (E. Dobbs, 2014; Porter, 2008). In order to assess the
threat of entry in the telecommunications sector of Kenya each of these barriers must be analyzed in the context of the
relevant boundaries. Some of the important variables to be analyzed are;

Capital requirements: The biggest barrier to entry into the capital-intensive telecommunication sector is usually access to
finance (Afande, 2015). To cover high fixed costs, serious contenders typically require a large amount of cash. When capital
markets are generous, the threat of competitive entrants escalates. When financing opportunities are less readily available,
the pace of entry slows down. In order to analyze the threat of new entrants based on the capital requirement, it is essential
to evaluate the capital market and thus understand the availability of finance for this sector. It is an expensive business;
contenders need to be large enough and produce sufficient cash flow to absorb the costs of expanding networks and
services that become obsolete seemingly overnight (Farrell, 2007). A company like Safaricom has a huge capital base
having made 180 million dollars since 2006 according to Singh (2009), a figure which was more than triple combined
profits made by competitors, and with this the company is in a position to change transmission systems and upgrade
frequently to the detriment of competitors.

Switching costs: Customer switching costs are fixed costs that buyers face when they change suppliers (Porter, 1985). In
the telecommunication sector, it mainly depends on what kinds of cost consumers or buyers have to undertake if they
switch from one provider to another. In the mobile telephone sector, this is generally dictated by regulations that may
ensure telephone number portability, the fees charged for transfer and the ease of transfer, including swiftness of switching
and the overall experience of switching to another provider (Afande, 2015; Nikbin, Ismail, Marimuthu, & Armesh, 2012).
Some mobile service providers like Safaricom and Airtel, sell phones that can only accommodate one sim card, in other
instances they do sell what is referred to as locked phones, phones that can only accept the service provider line. Such a
scenario makes customer-switching costs high (Oteri, Kibet, & Ndung’u, 2015).

Unequal access to distribution channels: Distribution channels in the telecommunications industry range from self-owned
distribution points to any type of shop and also to sales points with vending and automated machines (Oloko, Anene, Kiara,
Kathambi, & Mutulu, 2014). Generally, these distribution points are of negligible value to telecommunications
organizations and therefore have no impact on the threat to entry. However, if exclusive distribution rights existed at critical
or highly dynamic distribution points, then unequal access to these points might constitute a restriction to the threat to
new entrants. Olunga (2007) noted that incumbents in Kenya do not have exclusive distribution rights and the distribution

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 3
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

channels are free to all. Recharge cards, for example, are sold widely at various retail outlets, with barber shops and laundry
service centers as the non-mainstream telecom product outlets; these are not organized by the industry. Customers may
not frequent these shops daily, but they do so at regular intervals. However in the mobile money transfer sector, there
exclusivity is still thriving with products like Mpesa enjoying wider unshared agency network. The number and
distribution of retail shops is also un even as some companies have more shops distributed country wide than others
(Gitonga, 2016; Olunga, 2007). As an example, in Nairobi the number of retail centers and customer care shops is un
evenly distributed with Telkom having 14 retail shops, Airtel has 8 while Safaricom has 26 (Chesula, 2018).
Unfavorable government regulations: National government may exert pressure on the freedom of the telecommunications
sector in the name of security, consumer protection and other legal concerns. such restrictive government policies can
create a significant barrier to entry (Gikandi & Bloor, 2010; Olunga, 2007). The Communications Authority of Kenya 2016
report indicated that the authority has begun a comprehensive review of the regulations governing the sector and it’s
proposing to impose retail price controls on perceived dominant operators. Such proposals will unduly impact the
operators ability to respond to market forces and to compete fairly (Oloko et al., 2014).

Bargaining Power of Suppliers

If suppliers have more bargaining leverage against the firm, then they are more powerful and can dictate terms (Brown,
Fee, & Thomas, 2009). The power of suppliers in the telecommunications industry in Kenya just like in the rest of the world
is affected by two key elements: the power of the Network Equipment Providers (NEPs) also referred to as Communications
Solutions Providers (CSPs) and the power of the workforce, or suppliers of labour (Hess & Coe, 2006; Ireland, 1999).
Network Equipment Providers (NEPs)/Communications Solution Providers (CSPs) are companies that provide
communication solutions to service providers like fixed or mobile operators, as well as to enterprise customers. If you call
somebody on your mobile phone, surf the internet, join a conference call or watch a video on demand through IPTV
(internet protocol TV), these services are all NEP-enabled (Hawilo, Shami, Mirahmadi, & Asal, 2014). The power of these
suppliers depends on a number of factors, namely: the level of concentration of the NEPs, whether or not they depend
heavily on the telecommunication service providers for their revenues, the costs to the telecommunication service
providers of switching NEPs and the level of differentiation of products (Brennan, 1997; A. Hill & Abdala, 1993). In Kenya
most of the NEPs are small firms depending more on the main stream mobile service providers for revenue generation and
this gives the main stream companies more bargaining power over them.
The power exerted by workforce (labour) suppliers is the second element; it is affected by the
availability of a qualified and experienced telecommunications sector work-force and
also by the consolidation in the regional labour market in the telecommunications sector (Doellgast, 2008). Some
companies with good corporate image and stability are preferred by many of the labour suppliers, this therefore means
that they will always attract the best employees in the market. It’s also noted by one of the telecommunication company
employee that the company’s employees are not members of any trade union. This reduces their bargaining power over
various issues with the company hence.

Bargaining Power of Buyer or Customer Power

Buyers of telecommunications services include both individual and corporate buyers.

The most influential factors in their decision making are price sensitivity and the
perceived quality of service (Brennan, 1997; Kim, Ryoo, & Jung, 2011). Price sensitivity is a function of the overall buying
behavior of buyers in the market, the income of the buyers and the value that is accorded by these buyers to the products
and services offered by the participants in the telecommunications industry (Inderst & Wey, 2003). In recent years we have
witnessed price wars among the competitors in the telecommunications sector in Kenya. These they elude to the fact that
most Kenyan consumers are price sensitive. However with the market share percentage remaining unchanged over the

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 4
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

past years, the overall price sensitivity in telecommunications industry in the country might not be a determinant.

The negligibility of switching costs for buyers is also a critical factor when investigating the power of the buyer. Due to
highly differentiated products and services by a company like Safaricom, for example, the cost of switching from Mpesa to
Airtel money or T-kash is too high in terms of convenience since only Safaricoms Mpesa among the mobile money service
providers has a countrywide agent network. In such a scenario buyer power is reduced (Keter, 2015).

Threat of Substitutes

A substitute is a product or service that performs the same function as firms product but by different means (Porter, 2008).
The main substitutes in the wider telecommunications industry in Kenya are calling cards, internationally or foreign-
managed VoIP services, satellite internet, satellite phones and NGNs. Local competitor services for both Voice and data are
also a threat for the rate of growth of competitor firms. The Communications Authority of Kenya report 2017 indicated
that the customer base for Airtel grew at a higher rate compared to Safaricom this in itself is an indication of how substitute
products can affect a company’s market share and growth rate.
Substitutes offer the greatest threat when they can provide buyers with better
service at lower costs through changes that improve the value of their products or
services. The unlicensed provision of international phone calls using VoIP is not clearly regulated in Kenya (Wachira, 2010),
Demand for low-cost international calls is high and scrupulous traders have been taking advantage of unclear regulations
to meet rising demand. Calls through Skype, Vibe, Duo, and other popular VoIP internet sites, have increased as cyber cafes
and phones can access (Barasa, 2010; Njeri, 2017).

Competitive Industry Rivalry

Michael Porter’s fifth force is competitive rivalry, which may be defined as the efforts that industry players or existing
competitors make in order to sustain and improve their market share,
revenue, profitability and image. High rivalry limits the profitability of an industry (E. Dobbs, 2014). In the
telecommunications sector, all aspects of rivalry, including price discounting,
introduction of new products, service improvements and advertising campaigns play
an important role (Kandie, 2001; Nikbin et al., 2012). According to Porter, the degree of rivalry depends on the intensity as
well as the basis of competition (Porter, 2008). Some of the variables used to analyze competitive rivalry are explained
below.
Industry concentration and size competitors: The number of competitors is important as all the telecommunication firms
in the sector have to share the same market. The size of network and coverage determines the size of market share. Those
firms with limited coverage will hence have small market share and less influence (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995). Kenya
has only one Virtual Network Operator (VNO) Equitel which has way below one percent market share, its influence is
insignificant. According to Porter, Ketels, and Delgado (2007) the financial strength of the industry players gives an
important indication of their power and hence their ability to pressure their rivals. With only four registered but three
active network operators in the country, thus, Safaricom, Airtel, Telkom and the in active Essar (YU), this is an indication
that the concentration in the mobile operator sector is low, resulting in a relatively low competitive pressure. However, in
the case of including NEP and CSPs then the number grows increasing competitive pressure in the sector.
Rate of industry growth: Analyzing the rate of industry growth both present and prospective is important in determining
the sectors competitiveness. All services in the industry which include; fixed and mobile, voice and internet communication
service, must be analyzed individually. Growth related to actual growth in buyers willing to buy services provided by the
sector and the growth in potential buyers who were not able to acquire the product or service due to lack of information
or lack of reach of the industry product or service provider must also be determined. In this industry, the rate of the

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 5
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

industry’s growth is monitored mainly through the penetration rates of individual services provided in the market (Mozer,
Wolniewicz, Grimes, Johnson, & Kaushansky, 2000). According to the Communications Authority of Kenya 2012, Mobile
phone penetration in the country is currently standing at 88 percent. The penetration rates on internet hit 112.7 percent
which means that growth in consumers of these telecommunication services is increasing day by day and has yet to be
exhausted and is therefore guaranteed. As such, there is growth in the market and the competition is not about sharing the
same market but is about reaching out to newer customers and growing the market itself (Mburu, 2012). Mobile average
revenue per user (ARPU) has increased by 40% in the last 6 years, Fixed broadband lines and voice (over broadband) lines
are growing, but market is still in its growth state (Stephane Piot, 2018).
Exit barriers: Exit barriers may arise in the telecommunications business because of its very nature: the extensive networks,
specialized assets and agreements for providing services with regard to contractual and general commitments (Li &
Whalley, 2002). Exit barriers may result in extensive competitive pressures as excess capacity remains in use and the
overall market profitability suffers because of the under-performing of the industry players (Harrigan, 1985).
In Kenya, government-owned players like Telkom Kenya keep the commitment to staying in the business very high, as the
reasons for staying in business are not solely profitability but also political and economic reasons like employment creation
and infrastructural investments at play. Some mobile service providers have been licensed to operate telecommunication
networks and services as a package, including fixed and mobile telephone, internet and other services. Operators may
therefore have to stay in one area of telecommunications service provision despite earning low or negative returns. Exit
barriers are significant because players make
huge investments in networks and network equipment and firms are committed to
operating through to the end of their license periods and seek renewals to safeguard their investments despite the low
returns for some players (Kavale, 2012). Those which can’t keep the pace apply for dissolution none the less, a case of Essar
(YU) mobile (Kavale, 2012).
Price competition: As noted before, in Kenya’s telecommunications industry, the products and services offered are similar.
The services provided by the network operators and service providers and VNOs are perishable; this is because every
minute that people are not talking or utilizing the available bandwidth for internet or broadband, the service is
unrecoverable in terms of returns for the operating organization. Price competition in the Kenyan telecommunication
sector is high (Muturi, Wadawi, & Owino, 2014). However, the Communications Authority of Kenya and the Competition
Authority regulations have often intervened to control competitive price cuts. Price wars were highly experienced between
2010 and 2012 when Airtel by then trading as Zain cut calling rates by 5 percent prompting Safaricom and Telkom Orange
to follow suit (Arasa & Gathinji, 2014). In addition the reduction in mobile termination rates in August 2010 led to an
immediate reduction in retail prices, allowing smaller operators to compete with dominant operators (Christoph, 2012).
Competition on innovation dimension and marketing: Competition in the telecommunications industry also involves
product and service features, support services and brand image and can be investigated by analyzing the differentiation
and targeting strategies of the service providers, product and service features and also other facets of the various product
and service offerings. Moreover, it is natural that companies are much more likely to achieve superior profitability and earn
above-average profits if they are able to find a unique way of delivering superior value to customers (Njuguna, 2012).
Gitonga (2016), notes that contact centers are no doubt a marketing tool that all the telecommunications companies use
to portray efficiency in customer care. Comparative marketing strategies have also been employed to enhance competitive
rivalry (Maina, 2016). Innovative products and services like Mpesa are vital in enhancing market competitiveness
(Mohamed & Atheru, 2017). All the firms in the industry are engaging in corporate social responsibility as a way of
enhancing good image either as a proactive or reactive strategy (Ezenwa, 2016).
Familiarity among rivals: According to Rajasekar and Al Raee (2013) Telecommunications companies often compete
through diverse approaches, but if the competitors do not understand these approaches well, the rivalry may be intensified.
One important sign of this may be the copy-cat approach to pricing and product or service offerings, as this is indicative of
a lack of differentiation and target marketing and shows instead more aggression in the effort to undermine or destroy the
rivals’ efforts in marketing and product differentiation. For example, in Kenya rival companies have copied most services

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 6
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

and service codes introduced by Safaricom. One of them being “*544#” a code used to buy data from all the active three
mobile service providers. According to Letting and Muthoni (2013) there is a lot of copycat marketing strategy in Kenya.
Among all the service providers there is considerable matching in the product and price packaging and also similar market
tactics. All of them practice content localization even though Safaricom has been more effective in this marketing tactic
thus the process of adapting a product or service to a particular language, culture, and desired local "look-and-feel" in
localizing a product, in addition to idiomatic language translation (Shannon, 2000).

3.0 Conclusion and future direction

Porters’ five forces model is a powerful tool that helps managers in the telecommunication sector to explain why the
business is weak in some areas and why it is better in others. By carefully interpreting the results of the model, a firm can
start defining the ideal competitive strategy. The model offers not only a valuable starting point for strategic analysis
(Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2011), but it also has some limitations. To be able to ascertain the actual verifiable results
of competition within the telecommunication industry, researchers have to undertake statistical analysis with this model
in this field. They can push this model down from the theoretical frame to the practical arena and encourage the firms to
use this in the competitive analysis of their own firms and its competitors. It’s also important to expand future analysis to
determine other factors not mentioned in this concept paper but vital in the five forces model. To prove that other factors
other than the five forces determine profitability and overall performance in industries poses a research gap as well and
hence further research is recommended.

References
Afande, F. (2015). Constraints to expansion of the Telecommunication sector in Kenya. Public Policy and Administration
Research, 5, 21-78.
Arasa, R., & Gathinji, L. (2014). The relationship between competitive strategies and firm performance: A case of mobile
telecommunication companies in Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(9), 1-
15.
Barasa, S. N. (2010). Language, mobile phones and internet: a study of SMS texting, email, IM and SNS chats in computer
mediated communication (CMC) in Kenya.
Brennan, R. (1997). Buyer/supplier partnering in British industry: the automotive and telecommunications sectors.
Journal of marketing Management, 13(8), 759-775.
Brown, D. T., Fee, C. E., & Thomas, S. E. (2009). Financial leverage and bargaining power with suppliers: Evidence from
leveraged buyouts. Journal of Corporate Finance, 15(2), 196-211.
Chesula, M. (2018). The Effect of Strategic Ict on Performance of Telecommunication Firms in Kenya. MBA. Kenyatta
University. Nairobi.
Christoph, S. (2012). The mobile termination rate debate in Africa. info, 14(4), 5-20. doi:
doi:10.1108/14636691211240851
Doellgast, V. (2008). National industrial relations and local bargaining power in the US and German telecommunications
industries. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 14(3), 265-287.
E. Dobbs, M. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter's five forces framework: a set of industry analysis templates.
Competitiveness Review, 24(1), 32-45.
Ezenwa, P. (2016). Social Corporate Responsibility: A Tool of Achieving and Maintaining Competitive Advantage: An
Assessment of Safaricom Kenya Limited. United States International University-Africa.
Farrell, G. (2007). Survey of ICT and education in Africa: Uganda country report.
Gikandi, J. W., & Bloor, C. (2010). Adoption and effectiveness of electronic banking in Kenya. Electronic commerce research
and applications, 9(4), 277-282.
Gitonga, P. K. (2016). Customer Relationship Management Practices and Performance of Safaricom Limited in Kenya. School

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 7
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

of business, University of Nairobi.

Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Exit barriers and vertical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 686-697.
Hawilo, H., Shami, A., Mirahmadi, M., & Asal, R. (2014). NFV: state of the art, challenges, and implementation in next
generation mobile networks (vEPC). IEEE Network, 28(6), 18-26.
Hess, M., & Coe, N. M. (2006). Making connections: global production networks, standards, and embeddedness in the
mobile-telecommunications industry. Environment and Planning A, 38(7), 1205-1227.
Hill, A., & Abdala, M. A. (1993). Regulation, institutions, and commitment: privatization and regulation in the Argentine
telecommunications sector: The World Bank.
Hill, C. L, & Jones, GR (2001). Strategic management: an integrated approach: Houghton Mifflin College.
Inderst, R., & Wey, C. (2003). Buyer power and supplier incentives.
Ireland, P. (1999). Satisficing dependent customers: on the power of suppliers in IT systems integration supply chains.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 4(4), 184-191.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2011). Strategisches Management-Eine Einführung: Analyse, Entscheidung und
Umsetzung: Pearson Deutschland GmbH.
Jorgensen, J. J. (2008). Michael Porter’s contribution to strategic management. Revista Base (Administração e Contabilidade)
da UNISINOS, 5(3).
Kandie, P. Y. (2001). MA Study of the Strategic Responses by Telkom Kenya Limited in a Competative Environment. Un
published MBA University OF Nairobi.
Kavale, S. (2012). The connection between strategy and structure. International journal of business and commerce, 1(6), 60-
70.
Keter, A. (2015). Challenges of Strategy Implementation in the Telecommunication Industry in Kenya: A Case of Safaricom
Limited. United States International University-Africa.
Kim, K. K., Ryoo, S. Y., & Jung, M. D. (2011). Inter-organizational information systems visibility in buyer–supplier
relationships: the case of telecommunication equipment component manufacturing industry. Omega, 39(6), 667-
676.
Letting, N., & Muthoni, M. (2013). Innovation through Business Planning among Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in
Kenya: Nairobi: University of Nairobi. Retrieved on 2nd October.
Li, F., & Whalley, J. (2002). Deconstruction of the telecommunications industry: from value chains to value networks.
Telecommunications policy, 26(9-10), 451-472.
Macharia, J. W. (2017). Role of ICT in Socio-Economic Development in Kenya: Demystifying Gender Empowerment through
Mobile Telephony Impacts of the Media on African Socio-Economic Development (pp. 1-17): IGI Global.
Maina, D. K. (2016). CITIZEN CENTRIC EVALUATION OF ACCESSIBILITY OF ICT SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY:
A CASE STUDY OF HUDUMA CENTRES IN KENYA. University of Nairobi.
Man, T. W., Lau, T., & Chan, K. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptualization with focus
on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of business venturing, 17(2), 123-142.
Mauri, A. J., & Michaels, M. P. (1998). Firm and industry effects within strategic management: An empirical examination.
Strategic management journal, 19(3), 211-219.
Mburu, P. T. (2012). Technological Adoption in Africa-A Case Study on the Adoption of Mobile Banking in Botswana
Compared to Kenya Experience. Journal of Management Research, 4(4), 212-223.
Mohamed, A. B., & Atheru, M. G. (2017). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance of Mobile Service Providers in
Kenya: A Case of Airtel Kenya Ltd. International Journal of Finance, 2(6), 1-34.
Mozer, M. C., Wolniewicz, R., Grimes, D. B., Johnson, E., & Kaushansky, H. (2000). Predicting subscriber dissatisfaction and
improving retention in the wireless telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on neural networks, 11(3),
690-696.
Muturi, F. M., Wadawi, J. K., & Owino, E. O. (2014). Antecedents of customer perceived value: Evidence of mobile phone
customers in Kenya.

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 8
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal
International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing (IJRFM)
Vol. 8 Issue 7, July - 2018
ISSN(o): 2231-5985 | Impact Factor: 6.397 |

Nikbin, D., Ismail, I., Marimuthu, M., & Armesh, H. (2012). Perceived justice in service recovery and switching intention:
Evidence from Malaysian mobile telecommunication industry. Management Research Review, 35(3/4), 309-325.
Njeri, A. (2017). Effects of Innovation Strategy on Firm Performance in Telecommunications Industry: A Case of Safaricom
Kenya Limited. United States International University-Africa.
Njuguna, V. W. (2012). Competitive strategies adopted by Safaricom Kenya limited to tackle competition.
Oloko, M., Anene, E. B., Kiara, P. G., Kathambi, I., & Mutulu, J. (2014). Marketing strategies for profitability: A case of
Safaricom Ltd in Kenya Telecommunication Industry. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,
4(5), 1-5.
Olunga, V. O. (2007). Responses of Safaricom limited to changes in the Telecommunication industry in Kenya. Unpublished
MBA Project, University of Nairobi.
Oteri, O. M., Kibet, L. P., & Ndung’u, E. (2015). Mobile subscription, penetration and coverage trends in Kenya’s
Telecommunication Sector. International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 1-7.
Parkes, S., & Teltscher, S. (2011). ITU sees 5 billion mobile subscriptions globally in 2010. ITU International
Telecommunication Union [Online]. Available at: www. itu. int/newsroom/press_releases/2010/06. html.
Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Strategic Planning: Readings, 102-117.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Creating and sustaining superior performance Competitive advantage, 167.
Porter, M. E. (1989). How competitive forces shape strategy Readings in strategic management (pp. 133-143): Springer.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Locations, clusters, and company strategy. The Oxford handbook of economic geography, 253, 274.
Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition: Harvard Business Press.
Porter, M. E., Ketels, C., & Delgado, M. (2007). The microeconomic foundations of prosperity: findings from the business
competitiveness index. The Global Competitiveness Report 2007–2008, 51-81.
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship.
Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
Rajasekar, J., & Al Raee, M. (2013). An analysis of the telecommunication industry in the Sultanate of Oman using Michael
Porter's competitive strategy model. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23(3), 234-259.
Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic management journal, 12(3), 167-185.
Shannon, P. (2000). Including language in your global strategy for B2B e-commerce. World Trade, 13(9), 66-68.
Singh, R. (2009). Mobile phones for development and profit: a win-win scenario: Overseas Development Institute London,
England.
Sohel, S. M., Rahman, A. M. A., & Uddin, M. A. (2014). Competitive profile matrix (CPM) as a competitors’ analysis tool: A
theoretical perspective. International Journal of Human Potential Development, 3(1), 40-47.
Stephane Piot, P. B., Kerron Edmunson. (2018). Telecommunication Competition Market Study in Kenya. Nairobi: Analysys
Mason Limited.
Stonehouse, G., & Snowdon, B. (2007). Competitive advantage revisited: Michael Porter on strategy and competitiveness.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 256-273.
Wachira, K. (2010). Kenya Digital Life 2010. Paper presented at the MSRA Conference Proceedings.

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing

Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org 9
An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal