<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojbm
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Open Journal of Business and Management
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2329-3284
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2329-3292
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/ojbm.2025.131030
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojbm-140257
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Business 
     </subject>
     <subject>
       Economics
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    The Impact of Different Innovation Process Types on the Performance of Banking Services in Ghana
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Cosmos Kwasi
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Gyadu
      </given-names>
     </name>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="affnull">
    <addr-line>
     aSchool of Business, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     04
    </day> 
    <month>
     12
    </month>
    <year>
     2024
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    13
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    01
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    525
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    562
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      12,
     </day>
     <month>
      December
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      23,
     </day>
     <month>
      December
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      23,
     </day>
     <month>
      January
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    This study examined the impact of four innovation process types—organizational, product, process, and marketing—on the market share of universal banking services in Ghana. Data were collected from 100 managers across four universal banks, with respondents categorized by managerial roles for deeper analysis. Structural equation modeling was employed to test hypotheses, generating path coefficients, t-statistics, and p-values. The findings highlight process, product, and marketing innovations as significant drivers of market share, with process innovation emerging as the most influential factor. Marketing and product innovations follow in importance, while organizational innovation shows a comparatively limited impact. This quantified hierarchy provides a clear understanding of the relative significance of each innovation type within Ghana’s banking sector. The study offers actionable insights for strategic decision-making, resource allocation, and policy formulation, helping stakeholders enhance market share and overall performance. By shedding light on the specific innovation processes that drive success, the research equips practitioners with tools to better meet evolving customer needs and gain a competitive edge in Ghana’s dynamic banking landscape. Additionally, addressing the challenges of organizational innovation remains crucial for maximizing its potential impact. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge and lays a foundation for future studies to further optimize innovation strategies in the banking industry.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Banking Services
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Diffusion
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Innovation
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Performance 
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>The banking sector remains one of the most dynamic and turbulent industries globally (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-12">
     Appiahene et al., 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
     Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
     YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2020
    </xref>). The sector is critical to the growth of any economy and the support of businesses and individuals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-19">
     Asikhia et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-28">
     Cahyo et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-54">
     Hu et al., 2020
    </xref>). As a result of the need to constantly meet new and modern trends, banks must find innovative means of satisfying customers’ needs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-29">
     Camilleri, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-58">
     Kolapo et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-93">
     Zhao et al., 2019
    </xref>). Customer satisfaction is essential to the survival of the banking sector due to immense competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-30">
     Chalabi, 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-68">
     Oduro et al., 2022
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-70">
     Omagu et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-79">
     Sharma &amp; Kumar, 2017
    </xref>). Adopting innovation in the industry allows banks to meet customer demands and to achieve a competitive advantage in the banking sector. Innovation in the banking sector is an important phenomenon, which needs constant revision (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-73">
     Rahman et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-91">
     YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2019
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>There is a broad understanding that performance over time undergoes influence from a range of dynamic factors, including innovation, even if mainstream microeconomic theory (rightly) devotes much of its emphasis to the problems of static resource allocation and economic efficiency (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-19">
     Asikhia et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-84">
     Vagnani &amp; Volpe, 2017
    </xref>). For many years, experts have emphasized the importance of innovation for organizations to compete and succeed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-58">
     Kolapo et al., 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-74">
     Rajapathirana &amp; Hui, 2018
    </xref>). Increased awareness of innovation has produced a wealth of literature on the topic. As a result, innovation has expanded into a broad term that has several possible interpretations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-40">
     Dziallas &amp; Blind, 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-54">
     Hu et al., 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
     YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2020
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>In this study, innovation is defined as a “transformative mechanism for generating new ideas and incorporating them into established practices” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-83">
     Tidd et al., 2005
    </xref>: p. 66). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-37">
     Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (2001)
    </xref> presented a typology of innovation kinds that might be radical, incremental, product, process, administrative, or technological. More recently, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
     YuSheng and Ibrahim (2020)
    </xref> proposed that a multidimensional framework for innovative process banking services consisting of organizational, product, process, and marketing innovations would positively impact banks’ performance and productivity. Following the conceptual framework of YuSheng and Ibrahim, this study distinguishes between four innovation process types (organizational, product, process, and marketing). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-82">
     Tahir et al. (2018)
    </xref> stated that the main reason for the innovation process in the banking sector is to ensure efficiency and to position banks to meet the changing demands of both customers and competition.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Impact Statement</p>
   <p>The banking industry has undergone significant transformation over the past decade, shaped by technological advancements, regulatory shifts, and evolving consumer behaviors (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
     Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
    </xref>). These changes have introduced challenges such as maintaining profitability amid capital costs and nonperforming assets, as well as addressing global financial exclusion, with 2.5 billion adults remaining unbanked (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-13">
     Ardizzi et al., 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-25">
     Boateng, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-61">
     Le &amp; Ngo, 2020
    </xref>). Technological leapfrogging presents an opportunity to extend banking services to underserved populations and gain sustainable competitive advantages (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-72">
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2020
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>In Ghana, the banking sector faces additional challenges, including operational inefficiencies, rapidly changing consumer preferences, and recurrent banking crises that have eroded public confidence (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-24">
     Belkhir et al., 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-36">
     Dadzie &amp; Ferrari, 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-39">
     Dwamena &amp; Yusoff, 2022
    </xref>). While innovation is recognized as a critical driver of service quality and market share, there remains limited clarity on which specific innovation processes most effectively enhance banking performance. Divergent findings in existing research further complicate strategic decision-making, leaving Ghanaian banks at risk of falling behind competitors and failing to meet consumer needs.</p>
   <p>This study addresses these pressing issues by investigating the impact of organizational, product, process, and marketing innovations on banking service performance in Ghana. By bridging knowledge gaps and offering actionable insights, this research aims to empower professionals, policymakers, and stakeholders to adopt evidence-based strategies that improve service efficiency, restore public confidence, and foster competitiveness. Its findings aim to foster financial inclusion and ensure the sustainability of Ghana’s banking sector.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Theoretical Review</title>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Concept of Innovation Process</title>
    <p>Understanding and implementing the concept of the innovation process poses significant challenges that organizations must address to maximize their growth potential (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-27">
      Bossman &amp; Agyei, 2022
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-84">
      Vagnani &amp; Volpe, 2017
     </xref>). However, by establishing a systematic process, fostering the right mindset, and allocating resources effectively, companies can overcome these challenges and harness the transformative power of innovation to drive strategic growth and achieve long-term success (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-58">
      Kolapo et al., 2021
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-46">
      Galvan &amp; Galvan, 2017
     </xref>). The vast expanse of literature concerning innovation within the banking industry reflects the multifaceted nature of innovation processes, which have become increasingly intricate and diverse over time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
      Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-18">
      Ashiru et al., 2023
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>The research adopted the theoretical framework known as the Diffusion of Innovation theory (DOI), initially conceptualized by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers
     </xref> in 1962. The theory provides a robust analytical lens to explore how new ideas and technologies permeate societies, addressing fundamental questions regarding innovation adoption’s motivations, mechanisms, and outcomes. DOI theory elucidates the intricate process by which innovations spread through social systems, shedding light on the underlying mechanisms that drive the diffusion process. DOI theory examines the factors influencing the rate and extent of adoption, ranging from the perceived benefits and compatibility of the innovation with existing practices to its complexity, trialability, and observability.</p>
    <p>In the context of technology adoption within the banking environment, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers’s (1962)
     </xref> DOI theory is particularly pertinent and illuminating (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-14">
      Arthur &amp; Khraisha, 2018
     </xref>). DOI theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how banks and financial institutions assimilate and integrate technological innovations into their operations and services. Moreover, Rogers’s distinction between adoption and rejection offers a clearer perspective on the decision-making processes within organizations, highlighting the factors that influence the embrace or reluctance towards innovation. By employing DOI theory as the theoretical foundation for this study, the researcher sought to unravel the complexities of innovation adoption within the Ghanaian banking sector, offering valuable insights into the dynamics shaping the integration of new ideas and technologies in this rapidly evolving industry.</p>
    <p>Finally, in this study, diffusion is “the process through which an innovation is communicated via specific channels over time among members of a social system” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers, 1962
     </xref>: p. 5). Thus, innovation, communication channels, time, and social systems represent the four critical components of DOI.</p>
    <p>When the social system is conducive to innovation, it can facilitate the adoption and diffusion of new ideas, technologies, and practices (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-89">
      Yaw-Obeng &amp; Boachie, 2018
     </xref>). On the other hand, a social system that is resistant to change or heavily influenced by established norms and traditions can impede the adoption and diffusion of innovations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-15">
      Asaah et al., 2020
     </xref>). Factors such as social norms, communication networks, power dynamics, and institutional arrangements contribute to the overall context for the introduction and acceptance of innovations within the system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-14">
      Arthur &amp; Khraisha, 2018
     </xref>). Various social systems demonstrate diverse levels of openness to change, support for innovation, and risk tolerance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-86">
      Wang et al., 2020
     </xref>). These distinctive attributes profoundly impact individuals’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors, shaping their decisions regarding adopting innovations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers, 1962
     </xref>). Understanding how the characteristics of the social system interact with individuals’ levels of innovativeness allows researchers to grasp the intricacies and outcomes of the diffusion process within that specific social milieu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-26">
      Boer &amp; During, 2001
     </xref>). In essence, this perspective enables researchers to comprehend how societal norms, cultural values, institutional frameworks, and interpersonal networks collectively shape the trajectory of innovation adoption and dissemination within a given social context.</p>
    <p>By considering these dynamics, stakeholders can develop better strategies and interventions to facilitate the successful integration and uptake of innovations, fostering positive societal change and advancement. The process of adopting new concepts, services, or products within a social system is not an instantaneous event but rather a gradual process that evolves over time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-47">
      Ganzer et al., 2017
     </xref>). As a result, it becomes crucial to understand the specific behaviors individuals who adopt innovations at different stages exhibit compared to those who adopt them later (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-48">
      Geissdoerfer et al., 2018
     </xref>). By gaining insights into the characteristics of each segment, marketers can better comprehend the factors that either facilitate or hinder the acceptance of innovations. In line with DOI theory, five distinct adopter categories emerge in this process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers, 1962
     </xref>):</p>
    <p>Understanding these adopter categories and their proportions helps marketers to tailor their strategies and communication approaches effectively to target different market segments. By recognizing the varying degrees of readiness for adoption, marketers can tailor their messages, incentives, and engagement strategies to appeal to each category and to maximize the diffusion and acceptance of innovations within the social system. However, for innovation processes to occur, a comprehensive understanding of strategies, resources, technologies, tools, materials, markets, and situational needs is essential (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-5">
      Alharbi et al., 2019
     </xref>). Therefore, a deep understanding of the complexity of the innovation process and various diffusion methods is crucial for any diffusion study (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-14">
      Arthur &amp; Khraisha, 2018
     </xref>). Consequently, the researcher adopted DOI theory as the theoretical framework for this study. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers (1962)
     </xref>, innovation spreads through communication channels and requires consideration of time and the social system. An innovation introduces new, disruptive, or adapted value-added solutions to address customer needs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-54">
      Hu et al., 2020
     </xref>). Specifically, it introduces new changes in existing products, processes, markets, organizations, or combinations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-26">
      Boer &amp; During, 2001
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>Drawing from the pioneering work of (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
      Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-18">
      Ashiru et al., 2023
     </xref>) who delineated various types of innovation, the theory of innovation provides a valuable framework for analyzing the impact of different innovation process types on the performance of banking services in Ghana. Schumpeter’s categorization, which includes product, process, organizational, and marketing innovations, serves as a lens to examine how each type of innovation influences the efficiency, effectiveness, and competitiveness of banking services in Ghana. By leveraging this theoretical foundation, researchers can explore how innovations in products, processes, and organizational structures enhance banking service performance, drive growth, and foster sustainable development in the Ghanaian banking sector. Furthermore, better understanding of innovation types enables stakeholders to identify opportunities for strategic intervention and innovation-driven transformation, thereby positioning banks for success in an increasingly dynamic and competitive landscape.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Early studies on innovation in the field of banking services primarily focused on consumer adoption of the innovation process in the technological realm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-90">
      Obeng &amp; Mkhize, 2019
     </xref>). Subsequent research has expanded to explore various forms of innovation and their impacts on the industry. In banking services, process innovation refers to adopting new information technology, product innovation relates to financial innovation, and organizational innovation encompasses restructuring, re-engineering, and right-sizing the workforce (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-32">
      Chhabra, 2019
     </xref>). However, some scholars differentiate between technological innovation, including product and process types, and non-technological innovation, such as marketing and organizational interventions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-5">
      Alharbi et al., 2019
     </xref>). Technological processes involve enhancements in electronic, internet, telephone, ATM, and mobile banking products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-66">
      Nkem &amp; Akujima, 2017
     </xref>). Technological advancements are reshaping financial services and products, particularly in payments and deposits. New payment and deposit methods, platforms, and interfaces have been introduced, with ongoing projects aimed at further innovation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-69">
      Ohiani, 2021
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>In today’s business landscape, a significant business model innovation process revolves around the shift from traditional product-centric approaches to offering outcome-based services (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-8">
      Ameme &amp; Wireko, 2016
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-80">
      Sjödin et al., 2019
     </xref>). Unlike traditional service models, which focus on delivering specific products or services, outcome-based models prioritize achieving tangible business results for customers. Under this paradigm, service providers assume responsibility for delivering the necessary services, tools, and resources, persisting until the agreed-upon outcomes are realized (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-58">
      Kolapo et al., 2021
     </xref>). This approach ensures that customers receive tailored services precisely aligned with their objectives, highlighting the dual nature of innovation as both a process and an outcome (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-78">
      Sai, 2018
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>Central to this shift is the recognition that banking service providers must continually generate new ideas or products capable of diffusion throughout the market. However, it is essential to note that different types of innovation processes within banking services exhibit varying patterns and speeds of diffusion (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-14">
      Arthur &amp; Khraisha, 2018
     </xref>). Some innovations may spread rapidly across the market, while others may encounter barriers or exhibit slower adoption rates. As <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-#HYPERLINK  l R76">
      Rogers (1962)
     </xref> noted, service providers do not immediately transition to new products, processes, and marketing strategies. Instead, the adoption occurs gradually as they evaluate perceived attributes such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Companies are more likely to adopt and implement innovations that offer clear and unambiguous advantages over previous approaches, sometimes replacing existing products and business processes entirely (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-14">
      Arthur &amp; Khraisha, 2018
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-55">
      Inusa &amp; Bambale, 2017
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>By employing DOI theory as a theoretical framework, the researcher examined the impact of different types of innovation processes on the performance of banking services in Ghana. Innovations diffuse through communication channels, and companies adopt them in stages (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers, 1962
     </xref>). Therefore, it may take time for a new product, marketing approach, or process to become widespread. Service providers regularly embrace new technologies, adopt new process models, and introduce new products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-8">
      Ameme &amp; Wireko, 2016
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-64">
      Mbama et al., 2018
     </xref>). However, each social system responds differently to these innovations, and DOI theory helps to explain this phenomenon. Essentially, the innovation process allows banking service providers to gain a competitive edge over their competitors and to expand their market share by offering new and distinctive products to their customers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-1">
      Adeabah et al., 2019
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-59">
      Kpinpuo et al., 2022
     </xref>). Achieving this enables organizations to optimize their profitability. However, the complexity of organizational systems can sometimes result in nonlinear relationships between variables and increase decision-making challenges. Hence, the complexity of the banking service process modifies the stable relationship between innovation strategy and strategic outcomes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-11">
      Anning-Dorson, 2017
     </xref>).</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Conceptual Framework</title>
    <p>A conceptual framework is a diagrammatic representation of abstract or general ideas derived from specific instances (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-49">
      Gichungu &amp; Oloko, 2015
     </xref>). The independent variables in this study are innovation process types: organizational, product, process, and marketing. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers’s (1962)
     </xref> work on innovation is relevant to this study, as it focuses on the influence of various types of innovation processes on banking service performance. Rogers developed a comprehensive framework emphasizing the factors influencing the adoption and implementation of new ideas, facilitating the understanding of innovation diffusion.</p>
    <p>This study’s use of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers’ (1962)
     </xref> diffusion theory produced a more sophisticated knowledge of how to introduce and integrate innovative practices into Ghana’s banking environment. The pivotal role of organizational, product, process, and marketing innovations in propelling performance enhancements becomes apparent, as evidenced by studies conducted by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-5">
      Alharbi et al. (2019)
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-69">
      Ohiani (2021)
     </xref>. Moreover, Rogers’s diffusion theory furnishes invaluable insights into disseminating and assimilating these various forms of innovation within the banking sector. According to Rogers, several factors shape the adoption and diffusion of innovations, including each innovation’s relative advantage, compatibility with existing practices, complexity, trialability, and observability (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-6">
      Almutairi &amp; Yen, 2017
     </xref>). These factors are highly relevant to this study, as they contribute to understanding why specific innovation processes are more effective in driving banking service performance. For instance, organizational innovation, with its potential for improved operational efficiency and customer satisfaction, can appeal to banking institutions due to its relative advantage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-1">
      Adeabah et al., 2019
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-55">
      Inusa &amp; Bambale, 2017
     </xref>). Similarly, product innovation offering unique and tailored services may align well with customer demands, resulting in greater market acceptance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-43">
      Forcadell et al., 2019
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-79">
      Sharma &amp; Kumar, 2017
     </xref>). However, specific innovation processes, such as process innovation, can be complex to implement (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
      Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-41">
      Effiom &amp; Edet, 2018
     </xref>). Nevertheless, through trialability, banks can test and pilot innovative processes, reducing complexity and increasing the likelihood of successful adoption (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-11">
      Anning-Dorson, 2017
     </xref>). Moreover, observability plays a crucial role in innovation diffusion. When banks observe positive outcomes their peers achieve through marketing innovation, they are more inclined to adopt similar strategies to enhance their market share (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-20">
      Baba, 2012
     </xref>). By aligning this study with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
      Rogers’s (1962)
     </xref> work on innovation, the researcher established a robust theoretical foundation for examining the impact of different innovation types on the performance of banking services in Ghana.</p>
    <p>In addition, Rogers’s framework enabled the researcher to explore the factors influencing the adoption and DOI within the banking industry. It made it easier to conduct a thorough analysis of the dynamic interactions between these variables. Adopting a comprehensive approach contributes to a deeper understanding of how innovation processes drive banking service performance, fostering market share growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-54">
      Hu et al., 2020
     </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
      YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2020
     </xref>). Furthermore, it underscores the importance of identifying the specific innovation dimensions that yield the most significant benefits in competitive banking environments. The intricate relationships between these independent and dependent variables are visually illustrated in the conceptual framework presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Figure 1. Conceptual framework.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1534287-rId12.jpeg?20250126035953" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>3. Methodology</title>
   <p>Research Design</p>
   <p>In this study, the researcher used a non-experimental correlation survey design to collect numerical data from the target population, which consisted of managers working in universal banks in Ghana. In a correlational study, the researcher measures the two variables of interest and assesses their relationship without attempting to control for extraneous variables (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-85">
     Vance et al., 2013
    </xref>). Therefore, a non-experimental correlation design was the best choice for achieving the study’s results. The desired sample size was 100 management members to address the research question effectively. Out of the 23 banks operating in Ghana, the researcher selected a simple random sample of four banks. Each of the four universal banks contributed 25 managers to the study. The researcher’s primary data-collection method was survey questionnaires to bank managers via email accessed through established contact persons at each bank, with institutional permission.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Power Analysis</p>
   <p>Recognizing the importance of power analysis during the design phase, the researcher aimed to protect everyone involved (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-88">
     van Voorhis &amp; Morgan, 2007
    </xref>). When conducting a power analysis to establish the necessary sample size for the research, the researcher used a statistical study power of 0.95 and an alpha level of 0.05 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
     Figure 2
    </xref>). The chosen effect size for the analysis was 0.15, and the researcher conducted a t test for multiple regression and Structural equation modeling. By performing power analysis, the researcher aimed to estimate the minimum sample size necessary to detect the expected effect size with adequate power. Based on the G*power calculation, the priori computed sample size was n = 74. For multiple regression analysis, it was sensible to have a sample size greater than 50 plus eight times the number of predictors (m), expressed as N &gt; 50 + 8m, where N represents the number of participants and m denotes the number of predictors (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-23">
     Beck, 2013
    </xref>).</p>
   <fig id="fig2" position="float">
    <label>Figure 2</label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Figure 2. G * Power sample size estimate.</title>
    </caption>
    <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1534287-rId13.jpeg?20250126035953" />
   </fig>
   <p>However, to account for potential outliers, reduce the margin of errors, and increase confidence in the findings, the researcher opted for a sample size of 100 participants. This decision was influenced by various factors, including time constraints and the study’s specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The researcher selected a sample size of 100 managers to ensure a robust representation of the target population. The researcher aimed to balance practical considerations and the need for a sufficiently large sample size to detect meaningful relationships between variables. By choosing a sample size of 100, the researcher aimed to enhance the study’s statistical power, improve the accuracy of the findings, and increase the generalizability of the results to the broader population of managers in universal banks in Ghana.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>In this study, the researcher adopted a descriptive design. A descriptive design provides a snapshot of the current status of a variable or phenomenon (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-3">
     Aggarwal &amp; Ranganathan, 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-35">
     Creswell &amp; Creswell, 2018
    </xref>). Descriptive design involves collecting data that answer questions about the study’s respondents. The researcher chose the design to gather information about the existing state of the phenomena and to describe the variables or conditions in the research context. Various approaches can be employed within descriptive design, ranging from surveys to correlation studies that investigate the relationships between variables (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-50">
     Gunday et al., 2011
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-94">
     Zyphur &amp; Pierides, 2017
    </xref>). The following research questions and hypotheses were addressed.</p>
   <p>The study has one main research question (RQ1) and four sub-research questions (RQs) with corresponding hypotheses.</p>
   <p>RQ1: To what extent do innovation types (organizational, product, process, and marketing) influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana?</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Sub-Research Questions</p>
   <p>RQA. To what extent does organizational innovation influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana?</p>
   <p>H<sub>0A</sub>: There is no statistically significant influence of organizational innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>H<sub>aA</sub>: There is a statistically significant influence of organizational innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>RQB. To what extent does product innovation influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana?</p>
   <p>H<sub>0B</sub>: There is no statistically significant influence of product innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>H<sub>aB</sub>: There is a statistically significant influence of product innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>RQC. To what extent does process innovation influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana?</p>
   <p>H<sub>0C</sub>: There is no statistically significant influence of process innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>H<sub>aC</sub>: There is a statistically significant influence of process innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>RQD. To what extent does marketing innovation influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana?</p>
   <p>H<sub>0D</sub>: There is no statistically significant influence of marketing innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>H<sub>aD</sub>: There is a statistically significant influence of marketing innovation on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>Reliability and Validity</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Reliability of the Research Instrument</p>
   <p>A research instrument’s reliability and validity are paramount, as they collectively influence the integrity and credibility of the research endeavor. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-34">
     Cohen et al. (2000)
    </xref>, the integrity of research hinges upon the reliability of participant data, the precision of data-collection methods, and the validity of research outcomes. Reliability, a fundamental metric in research, gauges the consistency and dependability of a research instrument’s measurement variable across multiple trials involving diverse participants within the same context or scenario (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-45">
     Fraenkel &amp; Wallen, 2000
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>Moreover, reliability encompasses the facets of internal consistency, stability, and equivalency within a research instrument (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-22">
     Bannigan &amp; Watson, 2009
    </xref>). An impeccably reliable research instrument yields consistent results across various applications, regardless of the specific conditions of its deployment. In alignment with these tenets, the fundamental concept of reliability suggests that observed scores are a blend of signal and noise, and that distilling the genuine signal requires mitigating the noise (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-10">
     Anderson &amp; Gerbing, 1988
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-75">
     Revelle &amp; Condon, 2019
    </xref>). In essence, ensuring the reliability of a research instrument involves harmonizing the instrument’s measurement consistency to emphasize the accurate signals within the collected data. The process, in turn, bolsters the research’s capacity to yield dependable and trustworthy insights. By rigorously assessing the reliability of research instruments, researchers can enhance the credibility and robustness of their findings, thereby contributing to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Reliability of the Participant Data</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
     Table 1
    </xref> provides a comprehensive overview of the reliability analysis for the current study. The obtained coefficients, ranging from 0.894 to 0.968, demonstrated high internal consistency among the investigated latent variables (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-60">
     Lai, 2018
    </xref>). This robust reliability indicated that the measurement instruments used to capture these variables were stable and coherent, contributing to the overall validity and trustworthiness of the study’s findings. The commendable reliability of the latent variables strengthens the confidence in the accuracy and consistency of the collected data, thereby reinforcing the credibility of the study’s outcomes. Additionally, the high reliability of the latent variables suggests that the constructs they represent are well-defined and accurately measured, further solidifying the study’s methodological rigor. The reliability analysis results underscore the reliability and robustness of the study’s data-collection instruments, enhancing the study’s overall quality and reliability. The latent variables’ high reliability indicates that the constructs they represent are precisely defined and implies that they are accurately measured, thereby bolstering the study’s methodological rigor.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table1">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 1. Result of reliability analysis.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Construct</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">Number of Items</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">Cronbach’s alpha (α)</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Organizational innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">8</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">0.968</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Process innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">0.963</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Product innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">0.950</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Market innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">0.920</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="36.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Bank market share</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="28.70%"><p style="text-align:center">4</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="34.82%"><p style="text-align:center">0.894</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Validity of the Research Instrument</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>The concept of research instrument validity encapsulates the extent to which the variables encompassed within the instrument accurately measure the intended dimensions. It serves as a yardstick to ascertain whether the instrument effectively captures the intended attributes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-10">
     Anderson &amp; Gerbing, 1988
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-31">
     Chetwynd, 2022
    </xref>). The validation of a research instrument could be contingent upon different perspectives: alignment with external perceptions, which constitutes face validity or content validity; congruence with theoretical constructs, defined as construct validity; or correlation with prior investigations, or criterion validity, encompassing both concurrent and predictive forms (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-81">
     Souza et al., 2017
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>Despite adopting a research instrument from pre-existing studies, each rigorously tested for validity, the researcher took additional steps to bolster its credibility. In this context, the researcher subjected the instrument to the scrutiny of fellow doctoral students, enhancing its face validity by rectifying any inadvertent spelling errors (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-65">
     Mostert et al., 2023
    </xref>). Moreover, experts in the field, leveraging diverse methodologies, meticulously reviewed the instrument, contributing valuable insights to ensure its accuracy and appropriateness (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-81">
     Souza et al., 2017
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>At its core, construct validity was entrenched in the foundational theory underpinning variable measurement. The theory forms the bedrock for the research instrument. The establishment of construct validity involves a range of techniques, each tailored to substantiate the alignment between the instrument’s measurement outcomes and the theoretical framework anchoring it. In essence, construct validity scrutinizes the alignment of observed associations between variables and their anticipated relationships as predicted by theoretical constructs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-87">
     Westen &amp; Rosenthal, 2003
    </xref>). It is pertinent to note that construct validity centered on the outcomes derived from the instrument’s application rather than the instrument per se.</p>
   <p>Consequently, the validation process of the construct is an ongoing endeavor, signifying that it is a continual and iterative process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-22">
     Bannigan &amp; Watson, 2009
    </xref>). In this study, construct validity was examined through lenses such as convergent validity and discriminant validity. Both contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the instrument’s ability to measure the theoretical constructs it was designed to assess accurately.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Convergent Validity</p>
   <p>The evaluation of convergent validity in this study drew on the alignment with three widely recognized acceptance criteria for measurement scales, encompassing factor loadings, composite reliabilities (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The factor loadings ranged from 0.698 to 0.918, CR spanned from 0.907 to 0.965, and AVE ranged from 0.665 to 0.775. The fulfillment of these criteria is contingent upon certain thresholds: factor loadings greater than 0.6 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-21">
     Bagozzi, 1981
    </xref>), CR exceeding 0.7 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-53">
     Henseler et al., 2009
    </xref>), and AVE surpassing 0.5 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-51">
     Hair et al., 2017
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
     Table 2
    </xref> shows that all constructs’ factor loading, AVE, and CR values surpassed the established thresholds, signifying robust convergent validity. The measurement instruments for all constructs exhibited a strong convergence with their</p>
   <table-wrap id="table2">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 2. Summary of exploratory factor analysis.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Construct</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">Measurement</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">Factor Loading</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">Skewness</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">Kurtosis</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Organizational innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">AVE = 0.705, CR = 0.950</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI1</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.798</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.308</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.038</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI2</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.865</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.414</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.464</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI3</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.864</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.318</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.095</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI4</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.884</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.409</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.210</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI5</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.886</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.259</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.884</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI6</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.858</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.120</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.701</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI7</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.847</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.571</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.965</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">OI8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.698</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.085</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.738</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Product innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">AVE = 0.665, CR = 0.941</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI1</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.768</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.118</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.619</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI2</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.835</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.446</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.616</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI3</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.782</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.208</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.021</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI4</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.848</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.414</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.464</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI5</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.801</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.044</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.373</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI6</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.852</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.648</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.990</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI7</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.827</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.273</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.084</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PI8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.808</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.273</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.109</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Process innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">AVE = 0.773, CR = 0.965</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI1</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.881</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.352</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.987</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI2</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.864</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.448</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.257</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI3</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.888</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.324</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.895</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI4</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.909</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.412</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.243</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI5</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.918</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.319</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.931</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI6</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.863</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.057</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.210</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI7</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.877</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.344</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.108</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI8</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.831</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.385</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.040</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Market innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">AVE = 0.710, CR = 0.951</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI1</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.848</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.040</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.163</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI2</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.870</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.820</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.391</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI3</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.875</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.075</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.181</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Continued</p>
   <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI4</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.881</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.328</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">0.640</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI5</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.779</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.450</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.880</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI6</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.868</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.937</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.128</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI7</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.816</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.613</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.873</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">MI8</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.796</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–1.574</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">1.637</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Bank market share</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center">AVE = 0.709, CR = 0.907</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS1</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.824</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.853</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.304</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS2</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.860</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.911</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.258</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS3</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.873</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.984</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.163</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="acenter" width="33.40%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS4</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.34%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="19.91%"><p style="text-align:center">0.808</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.926</p></td> 
     <td class="acenter" width="13.67%"><p style="text-align:center">–0.202</p></td> 
    </tr> 
   </table>
   <p>AVE: Average Variance Extracted = 
    <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
      <mstyle displaystyle="true"> 
       <mo>
         ∑ 
       </mo> 
       <mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <mrow> 
          <msup> 
           <mtext>
             ρ 
           </mtext> 
           <mn>
             2 
           </mn> 
          </msup> 
         </mrow> 
         <mo>
           / 
         </mo> 
         <mi>
           n 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </mrow> 
      </mstyle> 
     </mrow> 
    </math>, CR: Composite Reliability = 
    <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
      <mrow> 
       <mrow> 
        <mstyle displaystyle="true"> 
         <mo>
           ∑ 
         </mo> 
         <mrow> 
          <msup> 
           <mrow> 
            <mrow> 
             <mo>
               ( 
             </mo> 
             <mtext>
               ρ 
             </mtext> 
             <mo>
               ) 
             </mo> 
            </mrow> 
           </mrow> 
           <mn>
             2 
           </mn> 
          </msup> 
         </mrow> 
        </mstyle> 
       </mrow> 
       <mo>
         / 
       </mo> 
       <mrow> 
        <mstyle displaystyle="true"> 
         <mo>
           ∑ 
         </mo> 
         <mrow> 
          <msup> 
           <mrow> 
            <mrow> 
             <mo>
               ( 
             </mo> 
             <mtext>
               ρ 
             </mtext> 
             <mo>
               ) 
             </mo> 
            </mrow> 
           </mrow> 
           <mn>
             2 
           </mn> 
          </msup> 
         </mrow> 
        </mstyle> 
        <mo>
          + 
        </mo> 
        <mrow> 
         <mo>
           ( 
         </mo> 
         <mrow> 
          <mstyle displaystyle="true"> 
           <mo>
             ∑ 
           </mo> 
           <mi>
             a 
           </mi> 
          </mstyle> 
         </mrow> 
         <mo>
           ) 
         </mo> 
        </mrow> 
       </mrow> 
      </mrow> 
      <mo>
        , 
      </mo> 
      <mi>
        a 
      </mi> 
      <mo>
        = 
      </mo> 
      <mn>
        1 
      </mn> 
      <mo>
        − 
      </mo> 
      <msup> 
       <mtext>
         ρ 
       </mtext> 
       <mn>
         2 
       </mn> 
      </msup> 
     </mrow> 
    </math>, Factor Loadings &lt; 0.500 were omitted, Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.</p>
   <p>underlying theoretical constructs, aligning with the anticipated theoretical associations and confirming the constructs’ effective capture of the intended dimensions. The thoroughness of the convergent validity assessment underscores the reliability and accuracy of the measurement instruments in representing the constructs, substantiating the credibility of the subsequent analyses. The meticulous evaluation enhanced the credibility and validity of the study’s findings, reinforcing the confidence in the conclusions drawn from the data.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Discriminant Validity</p>
   <p>The assessment of discriminant validity took place following the methodology proposed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-44">
     Fornell and Larcker (1981)
    </xref>, a widely employed approach in empirical studies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-7">
     Amankwa &amp; Asiedu, 2022
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-27">
     Bossman &amp; Agyei, 2022
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-52">
     Hanaysha &amp; Al-Shaikh, 2022
    </xref>). Employing this well-established technique involves comparing the square root of the AVE for each latent variable with the correlation value between that latent variable and any other. According to the recommended criterion for discriminant validity, the square root of AVE should surpass the correlated value between the latent variable and any other, thereby establishing the condition for discriminant validity.</p>
   <p>The diagonal values (in parentheses) indicate that the square root of AVE is greater than the correlated value, confirming the fulfillment of the discriminant validity criterion. Affirming this outcome indicates that the latent variables are sufficiently distinct from one another, reinforcing the reliability and accuracy of the study’s measurement instruments, as <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
     Table 3
    </xref> shows.</p>
   <p>Before proceeding to hypothesis testing, the researcher rigorously evaluated the dataset, scrutinizing it against key statistical assumptions. The researcher transformed the data if necessary to ensure compliance with linearity, normality, multicollinearity assumptions, and fundamental measurement model criteria. The meticulous examination of these assumptions was vital, as any violation could significantly affect the accuracy of confidence intervals and significance tests, potentially compromising the model’s broader applicability to the population (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-42">
     Field, 2018
    </xref>). The rigorous data-preparation phase was essential for maintaining the integrity and robustness of subsequent statistical analyses, thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of the study’s findings.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table3">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
      Table 3
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 3. Correlation matrix of the constructs.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">Construct</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">OI</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">PI</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">MI</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">OI</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">0.840</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">PrI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">0.165</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.879</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">PI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">0.079</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.021</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.815</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">MI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">0.105</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.050</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.043</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.843</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="26.45%"><p style="text-align:center">BMS</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.70%"><p style="text-align:center">0.074</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.259</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.007</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">102</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.71%"><p style="text-align:center">0.842</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Note: Diagonal values (bold) are square roots of AVE.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Collinearity and Tolerance Diagnostics</p>
   <p>In this study, the researcher examined tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) to ensure the absence of common bias. The scholarly literature has suggested specific thresholds for both tolerance and VIF. Specifically, tolerance values should surpass 0.1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-67">
     O’Brien, 2007
    </xref>), while VIF values should be below 3.3 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-57">
     Kock, 2015
    </xref>) and not exceed 10 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-51">
     Hair et al., 2017
    </xref>). The values of tolerance and VIF, along with their significance in diagnosing multicollinearity, are in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
     Table 4
    </xref>. The computed tolerance values in this study ranged from 0.952 to 0.990, all surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.1.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table4">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
      Table 4
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 4. Collinearity statistics.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="27.78%"><p style="text-align:center">Dependent Variable</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="33.58%"><p style="text-align:center">Independent Variable</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="23.74%"><p style="text-align:center">Tolerance (1/VIF)</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.89%"><p style="text-align:center">VIF</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="27.78%"><p style="text-align:center">Bank market share</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="33.58%"><p style="text-align:center">Organizational innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="23.74%"><p style="text-align:center">0.952</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.89%"><p style="text-align:center">1.050</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="27.78%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.58%"><p style="text-align:center">Process innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="23.74%"><p style="text-align:center">0.967</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.89%"><p style="text-align:center">1.034</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="27.78%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.58%"><p style="text-align:center">Product innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="23.74%"><p style="text-align:center">0.990</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.89%"><p style="text-align:center">1.010</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="27.78%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="33.58%"><p style="text-align:center">Marketing innovation</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="23.74%"><p style="text-align:center">0.981</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.89%"><p style="text-align:center">1.019</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Similarly, the VIF values ranged from 1.010 to 1.050, significantly lower than the stipulated limit of 10. This observation underscores the absence of perfect multicollinearity among the predictor variables. Consequently, the study did not encounter the issue of multicollinearity, implying the absence of common bias in the analysis. The meticulous assessment of tolerance and VIF values adds robustness to the study’s results, enhancing the credibility and accuracy of the statistical analyses, as <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
     Table 4
    </xref> shows.</p>
   <p>Testing for Normality of the Data</p>
   <p>The researcher employed several statistical methods to assess the normality of the collected data from the study participants, including Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), skewness, and kurtosis. The examination of normality took place to ensure the robustness of the data analysis. The researcher evaluated the adequacy of the sample for the analysis using Bartlett’s test of Sphericity, while KMO assessed the sample adequacy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-23">
     Beck, 2013
    </xref>). The outcomes of these analyses were indicative of the data’s appropriateness for further investigation. Specifically, the results revealed significant statistics of χ<sup>2</sup> (630) = 3996.774 (p = 0.000 &lt; 0.05) for Bartlett’s test, affirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Furthermore, the KMO measure was 0.836, exceeding the threshold of 0.500, thereby reinforcing the adequacy of the sample for the analysis.</p>
   <p>Additionally, the skewness and kurtosis indices, ranging from −1.574 to −0.450 and −0.880 to 1.965, respectively (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
     Table 2
    </xref>), were evaluated in normality. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-62">
     Lei and Lomax (2005)
    </xref> advised that indices of kurtosis and skewness should not exceed |2.3| to indicate normality. The study’s results met this criterion, confirming the normal distribution of the collected data from the participants. The rigorous assessment of normality utilizing a variety of statistical indices ensures the reliability and validity of the data, enhancing the study’s overall credibility and the accuracy of the subsequent analyses conducted.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Measurement of the Model Fit</p>
   <p>In accordance with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-56">
     Kline’s (2016)
    </xref> recommendations for SEM analysis, it is essential to include key fit indices in the reporting process. The minimum set of indices suggested by Kline comprises chi-square, RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR. These fit indices play critical roles in evaluating the goodness-of-fit of a structural equation model, providing a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of its adequacy. Incorporating these indices in the reporting enhances transparency and adherence to best practices in SEM analysis. However, the current study went beyond this minimal requirement by presenting an extensive set of 10 absolute fit indices from the LISREL results. Specifically, these fit indices encompass various aspects of model adequacy and a range of critical measurements. The reported fit indices include the p value, chi-square/degree of freedom ratio, NFI, GFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), RMSEA, CFI, SRMR, and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR).</p>
   <p>These indices collectively contribute to comprehensively assessing the model’s overall fit. The obtained values, as <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
     Table 5
    </xref> shows, demonstrate an exemplary model fit in this study, with notable indices including a p value of 0.038, chi-square/degree of freedom of 1.565, NFI of 0.907, GFI of 0.941, AGFI of 0.912, IFI of 0.906, RMSEA of 0.0752, CFI of 0.920, RMR of 0.0762, and SRMR of 0.0735.</p>
   <p>These values collectively affirm the soundness and appropriateness of the model in explaining the relationships under investigation. The meticulous reporting of these fit indices demonstrates the researcher’s commitment to evaluating the structural equation model’s adequacy thoroughly and comprehensively. This practice not only enhances the transparency and rigor of the study, but also provides valuable insights into the model’s capacity to explain the observed phenomena effectively.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table5">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 5. Summary of confirmatory factor analysis.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">Fit Indices</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">Criterion</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">Research Model</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">p value</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">&lt;0.05</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.038</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">Chi-square/degree of freedom (χ<sup>2</sup>/df)</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≤3.00</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">1.565</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">NFI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≥0.90</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.907</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">GFI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">&gt;0.90</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.941</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">AGFI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≥0.90</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.912</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">IFI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≥0.90</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.906</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">RMSEA</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≤0.08</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.0752</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">CFI</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">≥0.90</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.920</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">RMR</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">&lt;0.08</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.0762</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="51.64%"><p style="text-align:center">SRMR</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.92%"><p style="text-align:center">&lt;0.08</p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="30.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.0735</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Study Findings</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>The study used descriptive SEM to analyze the results, which offer valuable insights into the impact of innovation processes on the performance of banking services in Ghana. By explaining the specific types of innovation processes and their influence on market share, the study contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics within the banking industry. Overall, the findings obtained from the survey, providing a clear and detailed account of the relationships between innovation process types and the market share of universal banking services. These results contribute to the existing knowledge in the field and offer practical implications for the banking sector in Ghana.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Description of the Sample and Response Rate</p>
   <p>The study involved a sample of 100 managers from universal banking services in Ghana. Data collection occurred through email survey questionnaires spanning several weeks. There was a 100% response rate, signifying the bank managers’ high level of engagement and cooperation. The respondents had different managerial roles, providing insights into their distribution within the sample. The diverse and educated pool of management members enhanced the study’s credibility and provided valuable perspectives on the impact of different innovation processes on banks’ market share.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Positions of Respondents</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
     Table 6
    </xref> reveals that the respondents comprised 39 managers and 34 middle managers. Additionally, 21 lower level managers and 5 vice presidents from the participating banks participated in the survey. Only one respondent indicated being a chief executive officer (CEO), holding the highest leadership position within a bank. Based on the findings, managers comprised the largest group of respondents, constituting 39 of the total. The term managers in this context likely refers to individuals working in various managerial capacities within the banks.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref></p>
   <table-wrap id="table6">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
      Table 6
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 6. Distribution by position.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="13.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Category</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="10.21%"><p style="text-align:center">CEO</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="23.76%"><p style="text-align:center">Vice Manager</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="20.33%"><p style="text-align:center">Middle Manager</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="18.66%"><p style="text-align:center">Lower Manager</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="13.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.48%"><p style="text-align:center">Frequency</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.21%"><p style="text-align:center">1</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="23.76%"><p style="text-align:center">5 39</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="20.33%"><p style="text-align:center">34</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.66%"><p style="text-align:center">21</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.57%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data,2024.</p>
   <p>The second-largest group comprised middle managers, representing 34 of the respondents. Middle managers typically occupy positions between top-level executives and front-line managers. Additionally, there were 21 lower level managers. The distribution of respondents’ positions in this study serves as a rich source of valuable insights, shedding light on the diverse perspectives and contributions originating from distinct managerial levels within the banking sector in Ghana. This distribution contributes significantly to the depth and breadth of understanding, offering a comprehensive view of how innovation processes impact market share in the universal banking industry from the lens of various management hierarchies.</p>
   <p>The study has captured a holistic spectrum of viewpoints, encompassing respondents from different managerial levels, ranging from front-line managers to senior executives. Each level of management brings unique experiences, challenges, and strategic considerations. As a result, the findings derived from this diverse distribution enable a thorough exploration of the multifaceted dynamics surrounding the impact of innovation on market share. The active participation and high response rate from the respondents reinforced the robustness and reliability of the data collected, enhancing the validity of the study’s findings.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>4. Bio-Data Discussion</title>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>The bio-data section of the study serves multiple essential purposes that contribute to the overall credibility and context of the research findings. While it may not directly impact the study’s outcomes, this section provides valuable information that fosters trustworthiness and transparency, and that provides context for readers, researchers, and stakeholders. One crucial aspect of the bio-data section is that it offers a glimpse into the characteristics of the respondents, enabling readers to understand the demographic makeup of the participants. Information such as gender, age, educational level attained, and work experience in the banking sector provides a comprehensive picture of the sample involved in the study. These data are crucial as they help readers to assess the study’s relevance and generalizability to specific populations.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Gender</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
     Table 7
    </xref> indicates that the study achieved a balanced representation of genders among the respondents. Specifically, 61 of the participants were male, and 39 were female. By reflecting a commitment to ensuring equal opportunities for both males and females in the banking sector, the researcher maintained a balanced gender distribution in this study. This highlights that employment decisions within the banks were made based on merit, skills, and capabilities rather than being influenced by gender biases. The study’s substantial representation of both genders reinforced the notion of inclusivity and diversity within the banking industry.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table7">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
      Table 7
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 7. Distribution by gender.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">Category</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Male</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">Female</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">Frequency</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.01%"><p style="text-align:center">61</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">39</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.01%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>The balanced gender composition of the respondents further suggested that the sector has been actively fostering an environment that welcomes and supports talented individuals from all genders to contribute to the industry’s growth and success. By achieving a balanced gender distribution in the research sample, the study promotes the idea of gender equality and fairness in the workplace. It serves as a positive example for the banking sector in Ghana and could be viewed as a progressive step towards dismantling gender-based barriers and stereotypes within the industry.</p>
   <p>Moreover, the balanced representation of males and females in the study enhanced the credibility and generalizability of the findings. It ensured that the research outcomes reflected diverse perspectives and experiences, making the results more comprehensive and reliable. Overall, the study’s achievement of a balanced gender representation reflected a commitment to inclusivity and equal opportunities within the banking sector. It sets a positive precedent for future research and serves as a testament to the industry’s dedication to promoting gender equality in all aspects of its operations.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Age</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
     Table 8
    </xref> displays the age distribution analysis, revealing significant insights into the respondent demographics. The largest age group among participants was between 41 and 50 years, comprising 40 participants. Following closely were individuals aged 31 to 40 years, constituting 31 respondents. Moreover, 15 fell within the age range of 51 to 60 years, while 12 participants represented the 21 to 30 years category. The smallest proportion, accounting for two, consisted of respondents at least 20 years old. Notably, the dominance of middle-aged participants offers crucial perspectives, given their roles and experiences within the banking sector.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table8">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
      Table 8
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 8. Distribution by age.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="20.68%"><p style="text-align:center">Age Bracket</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="17.58%"><p style="text-align:center">At least 20</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.03%"><p style="text-align:center">21 - 30</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.03%"><p style="text-align:center">31 - 40</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.29%"><p style="text-align:center">41 - 50</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="10.85%"><p style="text-align:center">51 - 60</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="10.54%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="20.68%"><p style="text-align:center">Frequency</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.58%"><p style="text-align:center">2</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.03%"><p style="text-align:center">12</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.03%"><p style="text-align:center">31</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.29%"><p style="text-align:center">40</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.85%"><p style="text-align:center">15</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.54%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>The substantial representation of the 41 to 50 age group is particularly noteworthy. These seasoned professionals hold pivotal positions within banks, making their insights influential in shaping the study’s outcomes. Their perspectives provide depth and reliability to the research results, enriching the understanding of innovation’s effects on market share. Furthermore, including respondents spanning various age brackets ensures diversity in the data, facilitating a comprehensive exploration of how different age segments perceive and respond to banking innovation. By embracing a wide range of participants, the study captures diverse experiences and viewpoints, thereby enhancing comprehension of how innovation processes impact market share.</p>
   <p>In conclusion, this age distribution offers valuable insights into how distinct age groups contribute to banking service performance in Ghana. The demographic data enrich research findings and foster an inclusive understanding of innovation’s role in shaping market share for universal banks in the country. The attention to age diversity ensures that the study captures different age cohorts’ varied perspectives and preferences, contributing to a more inclusive and representative analysis. The findings of this comprehensive approach hold significance for guiding strategic decisions and formulating targeted interventions to enhance banking services across various age segments.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Educational Level</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
     Table 9
    </xref> highlights the educational qualifications of respondents, shedding light on their diverse academic backgrounds. The data revealed that 60 of the participants held first or second degrees, indicating a well-educated cohort. This substantial percentage underscores the sample’s solid academic foundation and expertise in their respective fields, suggesting their capacity to engage thoughtfully with the research questions and offer valuable insights. Additionally, 26 of the respondents possessed professional certifications such as Associate of Chartered Institute of Bankers, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, Institute of Chartered Accountants, Certified Public Accountant, and Certified Information Systems Auditor, attesting to their specialized knowledge in the banking domain. These recognized certifications signify their commitment to continuous learning and professional growth, enhancing the study’s credibility and relevance.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table9">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
      Table 9
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 9. Distribution by education level.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="15.24%"><p style="text-align:center">Category</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="15.35%"><p style="text-align:center">Certificate</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="11.15%"><p style="text-align:center">Diploma</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="9.66%"><p style="text-align:center">Degree</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.68%"><p style="text-align:center">Professional</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.80%"><p style="text-align:center">Doctorate</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="9.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Others</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="11.98%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.24%"><p style="text-align:center">Frequency</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.35%"><p style="text-align:center">2</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.15%"><p style="text-align:center">7</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.66%"><p style="text-align:center">60</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.68%"><p style="text-align:center">26</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.80%"><p style="text-align:center">3</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.13%"><p style="text-align:center">2</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.98%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>Furthermore, seven of the participants held diplomas, and two had certificates, contributing diverse viewpoints to the study despite their relatively minor representation. The study also identified three respondents with doctoral degrees. Their extensive research experience and advanced expertise in their respective fields elevate the study’s rigor and contribute to the comprehensive analysis and interpretation of findings.</p>
   <p>In summary, the study’s participants exhibited a high level of education, with a diverse mix of qualifications, including first and second degrees, professional certifications, diplomas, certificates, and doctoral degrees. The educational diversity enriches the research outcomes, making them more robust and applicable to Ghana’s broader banking industry landscape.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Working Experience</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="table" rid="table10">
     Table 10
    </xref> on working experience indicated that most respondents (36) had worked in their respective banks for 6 to 9 years. A substantial group of participants with 6 to 9 years of experience demonstrates a significant level of tenure within the banking sector. Their tenure suggests active involvement in the industry and likely accumulation of valuable expertise and insights over the years. The responses from this group carry weight and offer valuable perspectives on the impact of innovation processes on banking services. A close number of participants (35) had been with their banks for 10 years or more, showcasing remarkable expertise and long-standing commitment to their respective banks.</p>
   <table-wrap id="table10">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table10">
      Table 10
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 10. Distribution by working experience.</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="17.76%"><p style="text-align:center">Years</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="18.10%"><p style="text-align:center">At least 3</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="11.50%"><p style="text-align:center">3 - 5</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="11.52%"><p style="text-align:center">6 - 9</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:center">10 and above</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="21.37%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.76%"><p style="text-align:center">Frequency</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.10%"><p style="text-align:center">9</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.50%"><p style="text-align:center">20</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.52%"><p style="text-align:center">36</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:center">35</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="21.37%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
   <p>Source: Field Data, 2024.</p>
   <p>Respondents with 10 years or more of experience in the banking industry held various roles and witnessed industry changes over time. Their extensive tenure positioned them as key informants in understanding the historical context and the evolution of innovation processes within the banking sector. Additionally, 20 respondents had 3 to 5 years of experience, representing a relatively newer cohort within the industry. Respondents with 3 to 5 years of experience may bring fresh perspectives and insights into the study, offering a view of the challenges and opportunities faced by early-career professionals. Their contributions are vital as they can shed light on the impact of innovation processes on their initial experiences in the banking sector. Moreover, the smallest group (nine) had at least 3 years of working experience. Being the least tenured, this subset of respondents may offer insights into the perspectives of newcomers to the universal banking sector. Their responses could reveal the early impressions and expectations of individuals just starting their careers in the sector, making their input crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the industry’s dynamics. The combination of seasoned professionals and early-career individuals contributes to the richness and complexity of the study’s outcomes, making it relevant and applicable to various stakeholders in the banking industry. In conclusion, the study’s exploration of working experience reveals a diverse group of respondents with varying tenure levels within the universal banking sector. Respondents with 6 to 9 years, 10 years or more, 3 to 5 years, and at least 3 years of experience offer unique insights into the industry’s landscape. The collaborative efforts of these individuals enhance our understanding of how innovation processes impact the performance of banking services. Consequently, the study’s findings have practical implications for strategic decision-making and policy development within Ghana’s banking industry.</p>
   <sec id="s4_1">
    <title>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Hypothesis Testing</title>
    <p>The researcher employed SEM as a robust analytical approach to generate inferential statistics for testing the formulated hypotheses (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-10">
      Anderson &amp; Gerbing, 1988
     </xref>). The technique was a combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. The results provide estimates that furnish valuable insights into the relationships under investigation through SEM. These estimates manifest as model summary tables and path coefficient figures, offering a comprehensive overview of the interconnections between variables within the research framework. The dataset employed for this analysis came from a pool of 100 respondents. The significance level, or alpha level, for the study was 0.05. The effect size, a measure of the strength of relationships in the model, was 0.15, and the statistical power was 0.95 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-42">
      Field, 2018
     </xref>). These parameters serve as foundational components in establishing the analytical rigor of the study. The results stemming from the analysis provide compelling support for the alternative hypothesis posited in this study. This hypothesis proposes that different types of innovation processes banks implement influence the market share of universal banking services in Ghana. The path coefficient analysis outcomes within the SEM framework are comprehensively presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table11">
      Table 11
     </xref>. The study’s formulated hypotheses, H<sub>0A</sub> through H<sub>0E</sub>, underwent empirical scrutiny, leading to notable findings. The results rejected the null hypothesis and accepted the alternative hypothesis for H<sub>aA</sub> and H<sub>aC</sub>, revealing that both organizational innovation (β = 0.159, t = 1.951, p = 0.032 &lt; 0.050) and process innovation (β = 0.252, t = 2.743, p = 0.006 &lt; 0.050) significantly and positively influence the market share of banking services in Ghana. Additionally, the results affirmed the validity of H<sub>aD</sub>, signifying that marketing innovation (β = 0.251, t = 2.040, p = 0.017 &lt; 0.050) has a substantial and favorable influence on the market share of banking services in Ghana.</p>
    <p>Conversely, the findings did not support H<sub>aE</sub>, indicating that product innovation (β = 0.0232, t = 0.262, p = 0.793 &gt; 0.050) does not exert a statistically significant influence on the marketing innovation of banking services in Ghana. However, H<sub>aB</sub> garnered empirical support, highlighting that product innovation (β = 0.242, t = 2.037, p = 0.021 &lt; 0.050) has a notable and affirmative influence on the market banking services within the Ghanaian context. Based on the study’s findings, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis for organizational innovation and accepted the alternative hypothesis, indicating that organizational innovation statistically influences the market share of banking services in Ghana. Similarly, the researcher rejected the null hypotheses for product, process, and marketing</p>
    <fig id="fig3" position="float">
     <label>Figure 3</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Figure 3. Path coefficients of the research.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1534287-rId18.jpeg?20250126035953" />
    </fig>
    <p>innovations and accepted the alternative hypotheses. The findings suggested that product, process, and marketing innovations statistically significantly influence banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana. Therefore, the study supported the idea that combining diverse innovation process types is crucial for optimizing market share growth in the Ghanaian banking sector.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Collectively, these observations underscore the varying impacts of distinct innovation types on the market share of banking services in Ghana. Process innovation (β = 0.252) emerged as the most pivotal factor shaping bank market shares in Ghana. The result was closely followed by marketing innovation (β = 0.251), product innovation (β = 0.242), and organizational innovation (β = 0.159). These quantified influences shed light on the relative significance of each innovation type in the Ghanaian banking industry. The comprehensive depiction of these results provided valuable insights for industry practitioners and policymakers, facilitating informed decision-making and strategic planning to enhance banks’ market positions and performance within the sector. These insights can guide the development of targeted strategies to maximize market share growth and overall performance within the Ghanaian banking industry. Additionally, policymakers can use these findings to inform regulatory frameworks and policies that promote innovation and competitiveness within the banking sector. These results highlighted the varying impacts of different innovation types on the market share of banking services in Ghana, with process innovation emerging as the most pivotal factor, followed by marketing, product, and organizational innovations. The findings offer valuable insights for industry practitioners and policymakers to guide strategic planning and decision-making. By conducting a detailed path coefficient analysis within the SEM framework, the researcher provided a deeper understanding of the relationships between the variables. These outcomes, presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table11">
      Table 11
     </xref>, contribute to a comprehensive examination of the mechanisms driving banking service performance in Ghana.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref></p>
    <table-wrap id="table11">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table11">
       Table 11
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Table 11. Summary of the effect of coefficient path.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">Hypothesis</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">Coefficient (β)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">T Value</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">P Value</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Decision</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">H<sub>aA</sub>: OI → BMS</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.159</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">1.951</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.032</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Supported</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">H<sub>aB</sub>: PI→ BMS</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.242</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">2.037</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.021</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Supported</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">H<sub>aC</sub>: PrI→ BMS</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.252</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">2.743</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.006</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Supported</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">H<sub>aD</sub>: MI → BMS</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.251</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">2.040</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.017</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Supported</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.36%"><p style="text-align:center">H<sub>aE</sub>: MI → P</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.43%"><p style="text-align:center">0.0232</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.262</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.60%"><p style="text-align:center">0.793</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="19.01%"><p style="text-align:center">Not supported</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>Significant at p &lt; 0.05*.</p>
    <p>Based on the study’s findings, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis for RQA (organizational innovation) and accepted the alternative hypothesis. The findings implied that organizational innovation has a statistically significant influence on the market share of banking services in Ghana. However, its effect may be weaker than other factors such as process, marketing, and product innovation.</p>
    <p>The researcher rejected the null hypothesis for RQB (product innovation) and accepted the alternative hypothesis. The outcome suggested that product innovation statistically significantly influences banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana, with innovative products substantially and positively affecting market share performance. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing product innovation to enhance market share within the banking sector.</p>
    <p>The researcher rejected the null hypothesis for RQC (process innovation) and accepted the alternative hypothesis. The findings suggested that process innovation has a statistically significant influence on banks’ market share in Ghana, with innovative processes within banking operations substantially and positively affecting market share performance. These results underscore the importance of prioritizing process innovation to enhance market share within the banking sector. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis for RQD (marketing innovation) and accepted the alternative hypothesis. The findings implied that marketing innovation has a statistically significant influence on banks’ market share in Ghana, with innovative marketing strategies substantially and positively affecting market share performance. The outcomes of this study provided valuable insights into the influence of various innovatiSon processes on the market share of universal banks in Ghana, highlighting critical pathways for growth. While organizational innovation emerged as a significant driver of market share, the study found that process, product, and marketing innovations contributed even more notably to market share enhancement. These results align with prior research conducted in Ghana by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
      YuSheng and Ibrahim (2020)
     </xref>, emphasizing the importance of employing a combination of diverse innovation processes to maximize performance gains. Such alignment reinforces the argument that holistic innovation strategies are essential for competitive success in the banking sector. However, these findings stand in contrast to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-20">
      Baba’s (2012)
     </xref> study, which suggested a stronger positive correlation between organizational innovation and market share growth. This divergence underscores the need for context-specific investigations to fully understand the unique dynamics of innovation within different banking environments.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>5. Discussion</title>
   <p>The study, a quantitative, non-experimental correlational investigation, examined the influence of various types of innovation processes (namely, organizational, product, process, and marketing) on banks’ market share. In the past decade, the banking sector has operated within an environment characterized by high volatility, dynamism, and fierce competition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
     Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-36">
     Dadzie &amp; Ferrari, 2019
    </xref>). Consequently, banks’ profitability has faced challenges (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-15">
     Asaah et al., 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-38">
     Das et al., 2018
    </xref>). The study’s findings are poised to offer banks a means to assess the significance of distinct innovation processes in terms of their impact on banking performance, with implications for bolstering profitability and market share within the sector.</p>
   <p>The outcomes of this study reveal a noteworthy pattern within the hierarchy of innovation processes’ significance for banks’ market share. The hierarchical structure, when ordered from the most to the relatively least influential, takes the shape of process innovation, followed by marketing innovation, product innovation, and last, organizational innovation. While the impact of organizational innovation on market share appears relatively limited, the study establishes the substantial influence of product, process, and marketing innovation on banks’ market share in the Ghanaian banking sector.</p>
   <p>Remarkably, among these four innovation types, process innovation emerges as the most potent factor, underscoring the pivotal role of innovative process strategies in driving the overall performance of banks. Following process innovation’s prominence, the impact hierarchy is structured as marketing innovation, product innovation, and organizational innovation. This hierarchy of influences presents a quantified assessment of the relative significance of each innovation type in the Ghanaian banking industry. The comprehensive depiction of these findings yields valuable insights for professionals within the banking sector and policymakers. For industry professionals, this knowledge provides a strategic roadmap, guiding their efforts in a manner that aligns with the workings of the Ghanaian banking landscape. On the other hand, policymakers can wield these findings as a potent tool to craft regulatory and policy frameworks that harmonize with the industry’s evolving needs.</p>
   <p>The following answers were inferred in response to the research questions and sub-questions based on the study results.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Answer to Research Question 1</p>
   <p>Based on the study’s findings, innovation types, including organizational, product, process, and marketing, have varying degrees of influence on banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana. Specifically, the research revealed that process, product, and marketing innovations significantly influence banks’ market share performance. In contrast, the influence of organizational innovation on market share was comparatively weaker. These results suggested that combining diverse innovation types is essential for optimizing market share growth in the Ghanaian banking sector.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Answer to Research Question A</p>
   <p>The study’s findings suggested that organizational innovation holds statistical significance, providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis that organizational innovation does not affect the market share of banking services in Ghana. However, compared to process, marketing, and product innovation, which exhibited lower p values or more substantial effects, organizational innovation exerted less significant influence in explaining the variability in the market share of banking services in Ghana. Thus, while organizational innovation remains significant, its impact may be weaker than other factors such as process, marketing, and product innovation.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Answer to Research Question B</p>
   <p>Product innovation significantly influences banks’ market share in Ghana, as evidenced by the study’s findings. Specifically, implementing innovative products substantially and positively influences banks’ market share performance. Thus, banks introducing novel and competitive products are better positioned to capture a larger market share than those not innovating in their product offerings. Consequently, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis, which posited no statistically significant influence of product innovation on banks’ market share, based on the study’s results.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Answer to Research Question C</p>
   <p>Process innovation significantly influences banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana, as study’s findings indicated. The research revealed that implementing innovative processes within banking operations substantially and positively influences market share performance. Specifically, banks adopting efficient and streamlined processes are better positioned to enhance their market share than those not innovating in their operational processes. Therefore, the study supports the alternative hypothesis, suggesting a statistically significant influence of process innovation on banks’ market share, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>Answer to Research Question D</p>
   <p>Marketing innovation significantly influences banks’ market share of banking services in Ghana, as evidenced by the study’s findings. The research revealed that implementing innovative marketing strategies substantially and positively influences market share performance. Further analysis of Research Question D revealed that managers view banks that effectively utilize innovative marketing techniques as better positioned to capture a larger market share than those needing innovation in their marketing approaches. Therefore, the evidence supports the alternative hypothesis, suggesting a statistically significant influence of marketing innovation on banks’ market share, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis.</p>
   <p>The study findings indicated that innovation process types, including organizational, product, process, and marketing innovations, significantly influenced the market share of banking services in Ghana. Specifically, process innovation exerted the most substantial influence, followed closely by marketing, product, and organizational innovation. The study demonstrated that organizational innovation had a significant and positive influence on the market share of banking services in Ghana. While its impact was notable, it was comparatively less influential than process and marketing innovation in shaping market share within the Ghanaian banking sector.</p>
   <p>The study did not find sufficient evidence to support a statistically significant impact of product innovation on the marketing innovation of banking services in Ghana. However, the research did suggest that product innovation positively influenced the market share of banking services in Ghana, although it was less substantial than the impacts of process and marketing innovation. The findings suggested that process innovation significantly and positively influenced the market share of banking services in Ghana. Process innovation emerged as one of the most critical factors in shaping market share within the Ghanaian banking sector, indicating its importance in driving banking performance and competitiveness. The study results indicated that marketing innovation had a substantial and positive influence on the market share of banking services in Ghana. While not as dominant as process innovation, marketing innovation remained a crucial driver of banking performance and market positioning in the Ghanaian banking landscape.</p>
   <p>The outcomes of the hypothesis testing underscore the vital significance of integrating diverse innovation processes to achieve optimal performance enhancements within banking services. These results align harmoniously with prior research that underscores the multidimensional nature of innovation processes, emphasizing their integration for achieving optimal performance outcomes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-17">
     Asgber &amp; Hanif, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-33">
     Chipeta &amp; Muthinja, 2018
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-54">
     Hu et al., 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
     YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2020
    </xref>). However, the outcomes contrast with those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-20">
     Baba’s (2012)
    </xref> investigation, which indicated a major positive correlation between organizational innovation and market share growth. The study’s findings directly address the research question centered on how various innovation types (organizational, product, process, and marketing) influence the market share of banking services in Ghana. These findings corroborate a positive relationship between these innovation types and banks’ market share. The interpretation of the findings underscores the necessity to enhance and cultivate innovation strategies that are well-aligned with the existing practices and values of the organization, thereby emphasizing compatibility (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-76">
     Rogers, 1962
    </xref>).</p>
   <p>Among the innovation types, process, product, and marketing innovation emerge as prominent predictors of banks’ market share, while the impact of organizational innovation on market share remains relatively limited. The study revealed the pivotal role of product innovations in augmenting the market share of universal banks in Ghana. Introducing innovative products and services enables banks to attract a more extensive customer base and subsequently increase their market share (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-16">
     Asare, 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-18">
     Ashiru et al., 2023
    </xref>). These findings underline the strategic significance of consistent product development and innovation to secure a competitive edge in the dynamic and competitive banking industry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-79">
     Sharma &amp; Kumar, 2017
    </xref>). Such insight can give banks valuable direction in pursuing relevance, competitiveness, and growth within the ever-evolving Ghanaian banking landscape.</p>
   <p>The statistical significance test notably demonstrated the substantial impact of process innovations on banks’ market share, confirming the alternate hypothesis. The observation aligns seamlessly with the prevalent trend in the Ghanaian banking sector, where banks have proactively embraced process innovations such as mobile banking and digital banking experience to enhance their market share while managing costs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-2">
     Adjei et al., 2020
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-9">
     Amoah et al., 2020
    </xref>). By embracing these technological advancements and streamlining their internal processes, banks can bolster efficiency and customer experiences, thereby contributing to expanding their market share (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-4">
     Akkaya, 2021
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-13">
     Ardizzi et al., 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-58">
     Kolapo et al., 2021
    </xref>). The study’s results underscore the strategic role of process innovation for universal banks in Ghana, acting as a catalyst for market performance and growth. The positive influence of process innovations underscores their potential to drive banks’ success and market expansion, offering a pragmatic roadmap for harnessing the power of innovation within the dynamic banking landscape.</p>
   <p>Moreover, the findings lay bare the substantial role of marketing innovation in explaining variations in bank market share. The regression outcomes further corroborated that marketing innovation exerts a statistically significant influence on the performance of universal banks in Ghana, thus endorsing the alternate hypothesis. The positive impact of marketing innovations on the market share of these banks is evident. The study sheds light on how Ghanaian universal banks leverage innovative delivery channels to market their products and services effectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-16">
     Asare, 2019
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-18">
     Ashiru et al., 2023
    </xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-92">
     YuSheng &amp; Ibrahim, 2020
    </xref>). Through the adoption of pioneering marketing strategies, banks can amplify their visibility, attract a more extensive customer base, and ultimately expand their market share within Ghana’s fiercely competitive banking industry. The constructive influence of marketing innovations emphasizes the strategic importance of harnessing state-of-the-art marketing methodologies to sustain competitiveness and success amid the nation’s dynamic banking landscape.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s6">
   <title>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-"></xref>6. Conclusion</title>
   <p>The study’s findings shed light on the distinctive roles played by various types of innovation processes, namely organizational, product, process, and marketing, in shaping the market share of universal banking services in Ghana. These results carry significant implications, and when compared with existing literature, they provide valuable insights into the shades of innovation within the banking sector. A detailed comprehension of how various innovation processes influence market share performance can guide strategic decisions and resource distribution in banks, ultimately strengthening their competitiveness and market standing.</p>
   <p>Process innovation (β = 0.252) emerged as the central driver of bank market share in Ghana, signifying its pivotal role in enhancing banking service performance. The literature has advocated harmonizing and integrating diverse innovation processes for optimal performance improvements. The present study aligns with this perspective, emphasizing that combining various innovation processes can yield the most significant enhancements in performance. In contrast to these findings, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-20">
     Baba’s (2012)
    </xref> study revealed a strong positive correlation between organizational innovation and market share growth. The variation underscores the unique dynamics and evolving characteristics of the banking industry. It indicates that the significance of different types of innovation can shift over time and across regions, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive understanding of innovation’s diverse effects.</p>
   <p>Furthermore, the study’s results affirm the influence of marketing and product innovations (β = 0.251 and β = 0.242, respectively) on bank market share. These findings complement the broader literature on innovation in the banking sector, emphasizing that introducing innovative products, services, and marketing strategies can attract more customers and consequently increase market share. By aligning with the industry’s ongoing trend, innovative delivery channels are constantly adopted to market their offerings effectively.</p>
   <p>Notably, the study found that organizational innovation (β = 0.159) had a relatively limited impact on market share. This finding suggested that while organizational innovation remains a relevant aspect of banking operations, it may not be the primary driver of market share growth in the banking services in Ghana.</p>
   <p>Regarding the hypotheses, the researcher formulated hypotheses H<sub>0A</sub> through H<sub>0E</sub>, which all were supported except for H<sub>aE</sub>, as the evidence showed that product innovation does not exert a statistically significant impact on the marketing innovation of banking services in Ghana. The outcome underscores the need for banks to differentiate between product and marketing innovation strategies and highlights the independence of these two aspects in influencing banking service performance. In conclusion, this study’s outcomes present a nuanced perspective compared to prior research, indicating that different types of innovation processes exert variable influences on the market share of universal banks in Ghana. Process, marketing, and product innovation emerge as notable drivers of market share, while the impact of organizational innovation on market share remains relatively limited. These insights contribute to the evolving body of knowledge on innovation in banking and offer practical guidance for banks operating in Ghana and similar contexts.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s7">
   <title>7. Limitations and Implications</title>
   <p>Research Limitations</p>
   <p>The research focuses on four specific innovation process types—organizational, product, process, and marketing—and their impact on market share within Ghana’s banking sector. While insightful, this narrow scope excludes other innovation forms, such as radical, incremental, or disruptive innovations, which may also influence performance. Additionally, the study may not fully capture the interconnected nature of innovation, where improvements in one area (e.g., organizational practices) ripple across others (e.g., product development).</p>
   <p>This study included four universal banks out of the 23 operating in Ghana. However, this limited sample size may have constrained the generalizability of the results. Future studies could enhance the generalizability of findings by including broader sample sizes, both within and outside Ghana, to compare and validate the current study’s findings across a wider range of bank managers.</p>
   <p>The use of email surveys as the primary data collection method, while economical and time-efficient, may introduce response bias and lower response rates, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Despite these limitations, email surveys remain a valuable tool for collecting data on innovation in Ghana’s banking industry due to their ability to reach geographically dispersed participants and ensure uniformity in questioning (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140257-35">
     Creswell &amp; Creswell, 2018
    </xref>). They also facilitate seamless integration with data analysis tools, offering respondents convenience and encouraging accurate, thoughtful responses. Future research should adopt a broader approach, incorporating diverse innovation types and mixed data sources, such as large-scale secondary datasets, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of innovation dynamics.</p>
   <p>Disclosure Statement</p>
   <p>Cosmos Kwasi Gyadu (PhD) is a scholar-practitioner specializing in Business Management and Accounting. He holds a PhD from Capella University, with research focusing on optimizing organizational performance through innovative financial strategies. With over 20 years of experience in the financial services industry, Dr. Gyadu has demonstrated expertise in financial analysis, strategic budgeting, performance optimization, and consultancy in the banking sector.</p>
   <p>As an educator and consultant, Dr. Gyadu is deeply committed to mentoring future leaders in accounting and finance. His professional and academic endeavors are driven by a dedication to excellence, continuous improvement, and the application of cutting-edge research to solve practical challenges. Dr. Gyadu has no conflicts of interest to disclose concerning this publication.</p>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Adeabah, D., Gyeke-Dako, A.,&amp;Andoh, C. (2019). Board Gender Diversity, Corporate Governance and Bank Efficiency in Ghana: A Two Stage Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) Approach. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19, 299-320. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-08-2017-0171
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Adjei, J. K., Odei-Appiah, S.,&amp;Tobbin, P. E. (2020). Explaining the Determinants of Continual Use of Mobile Financial Services. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 22, 15-31. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/dprg-09-2019-0074
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Aggarwal, R.,&amp;Ranganathan, P. (2019). Study Designs: Part 2—Descriptive Studies. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 10, 34-36. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_154_18
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Akkaya, M. (2021). Understanding the Impacts of Lifestyle Segmentation&amp;Perceived Value on Brand Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study in Different Product Categories. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27, Article ID: 100155. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100155
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Alharbi, I. B. A., Jamil, R., Mahmood, N. H. N.,&amp;Shaharoun, A. M. (2019). Organizational Innovation: A Review Paper. Open Journal of Business and Management, 7, 1196-1206. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2019.73084
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     AlMutairi, S. M.,&amp;Yen, D. (2017). International Diffusion of Digital Innovations: Mapping the Mobile Telephony of the Arab States. The Bottom Line, 30, 310-329. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/bl-08-2017-0020
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Amankwa, E.,&amp;Asiedu, E. K. (2022). Emergency E-Learning Acceptance in Second-Cycle Institutions in Ghana: A Conditional Mediation Analysis. SN Social Sciences, 2, Article No. 42. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00338-3
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ameme, B.,&amp;Wireko, J. (2016). Impact of Technological Innovations on Customers in the Banking Industry in Developing Countries. Business&amp;Management Review, 7, 388-397. &gt;https://www.academia.edu/31498211
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Amoah, A., Korle, K.,&amp;Asiama, R. K. (2020). Mobile Money as a Financial Inclusion Instrument: What Are the Determinants? International Journal of Social Economics, 47, 1283-1297. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ijse-05-2020-0271
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Anderson, J. C.,&amp;Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Anning-Dorson, T. (2017). How Much and When to Innovate: The Nexus of Environmental Pressures, Innovation, and Service Firm Performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 599-619. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-05-2016-0050
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Appiahene, P., Missah, Y. M.,&amp;Najim, U. (2019). Evaluation of Information Technology Impact on Bank’s Performance: The Ghanaian Experience. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11, 1-9. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979019835337
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ardizzi, G., Crudu, F.,&amp;Petraglia, C. (2019). Innovation and Cost Efficiency in the Banking Industry: The Role of Electronic Payments. Economic Notes, 48, 1-26. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/ecno.12121
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Arthur, K.,&amp;Khraisha, T. (2018). Can We Have a General Theory of Financial Innovation Processes? A Conceptual Review. Financial Innovation, 4, 2-27. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-018-0088-y
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Asaah, J. A., Yunfei, S., Wadei, K. A.,&amp;Nkrumah, K. F. A. (2020). Cultural Orientations and Product Innovation in the Ghanaian Banking Sector. The Service Industries Journal, 40, 518-541. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1569635
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Asare, G. (2019). Service Innovation in the Banking Industry of Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 7, 7-23. &gt;https://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Full-Paper-SERVICE-INNOVATION-IN-THE-BANKING-INDUSTRY-OF-GHANA.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Asgber, U. M.,&amp;Hanif, I. M. (2018). Impact of Multidimensional Service Innovation on the Performance of the Banking Services. Journal of Commerce, Economics, and Social Sciences, 12, 103-111. &gt;https://doi.org/10.24312/paradigms120115
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ashiru, O., Balogun, G.,&amp;Paseda, O. (2023). Financial Innovation and Bank Financial Performance: Evidence from Nigerian Deposit Money Banks. Research in Globalization, 6, Article ID: 100120. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100120
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Asikhia, O. U., Nneji, N. E., Olafenwa, A. T.,&amp;Owoeye, O. A. (2021). Change Management and Organizational Performance: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management, 3, 67-79. &gt;https://doi.org/10.35629/5252-03056779
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Baba, Y. (2012). Adopting a Specific Innovation Type versus Composition of Different Innovation Types. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30, 218-240. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321211222568
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 375-381. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800312
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bannigan, K.,&amp;Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and Validity in a Nutshell. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18, 3237-3243. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02939.x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Beck, T. W. (2013). The Importance of a Priori Sample Size Estimation in Strength and Conditioning Research. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 2323-2337. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e318278eea0
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Belkhir, M., Ben Naceur, S., Candelon, B.,&amp;Wijnandts, J. (2020). Macroprudential Policies, Economic Growth, and Banking Crises. IMF Working Papers, 20, 1-56. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513536989.001
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Boateng, K. (2018). Ghana’s Progress on Reaching Out to the Unbanked through Financial Inclusion. International Journal of Management Studies, 5, 1. &gt;https://doi.org/10.18843/ijms/v5is2/01
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Boer, H.,&amp;During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, What Innovation? A Comparison between Product, Process and Organisational Innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 83-107. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2001.002956
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bossman, A.,&amp;Agyei, S. K. (2022). Technology and Instructor Dimensions, E-Learning Satisfaction, and Academic Performance of Distance Students in Ghana. Heliyon, 8, e09200. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09200
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Cahyo, H., Kusuma, H., Harjito, D. A.,&amp;Arifin, Z. (2021). The Relationship between Firm Diversification and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8, 497-504. &gt;https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.0497
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Camilleri, M. A. (2018). Market Segmentation, Targeting and Positioning. In Tourism, Hospitality&amp;Event Management (pp. 69-83). Springer International Publishing. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49849-2_4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref30">
    <label>30</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chalabi, F. (2020). The Impact of Innovation on Banking Performance: Evidence from Lebanese Banking Sector. Journal of Applied Finance&amp;Banking, 10, 175-202. &gt;https://doi.org/10.47260/jafb/1069
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref31">
    <label>31</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chetwynd, E. (2022). Critical Analysis of Reliability and Validity in Literature Reviews. Journal of Human Lactation, 38, 392-396. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344221100201
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref32">
    <label>32</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chhabra, B. (2019). Innovations-Led Paradigm Shift in the Indian Banking Sector. Inter-national Journal of Financial Management, 9, 25-40. &gt;https://sdbindex.com/Documents/index/00000102/00000-68446
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref33">
    <label>33</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chipeta, C.,&amp;Muthinja, M. M. (2018). Financial Innovation, Firm Performance and the Speeds of Adjustment: New Evidence from Kenya’s Banking Sector. Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences, 11, 1-11. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4102/jef.v11i1.158
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref34">
    <label>34</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Cohen, L., Manion, L.,&amp;Morrison, K. (2000). Research Method in Education. Routledge. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref35">
    <label>35</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Creswell, J. W.,&amp;Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref36">
    <label>36</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Dadzie, J. K.,&amp;Ferrari, A. (2019). Deregulation, Efficiency and Competition in Developing Banking Markets: Do Reforms Really Work? A Case Study for Ghana. Journal of Banking Regulation, 20, 328-340. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-019-00097-x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref37">
    <label>37</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Damanpour, F.,&amp;Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 45-65. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00227
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref38">
    <label>38</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Das, P., Verburg, R., Verbraeck, A.,&amp;Bonebakker, L. (2018). Barriers to Innovation within Large Financial Services Firms: An In-Depth Study into Disruptive and Radical Innovation Projects at a Bank. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21, 96-112. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-03-2017-0028
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref39">
    <label>39</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Dwamena, K. O.,&amp;Yusoff, M. E. (2022). Banking Crisis in Ghana: Major Causes. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 3, 406-418. &gt;https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarafms/v12-i3/14833
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref40">
    <label>40</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Dziallas, M.,&amp;Blind, K. (2019). Innovation Indicators throughout the Innovation Process: An Extensive Literature Analysis. Technovation, 80, 3-29. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.005
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref41">
    <label>41</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Effiom, L.,&amp;Edet, S. (2018). Success of Small and Medium Enterprises in Nigeria: Do Environmental Factors Matter. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 9, 117-128. &gt;https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234648169.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref42">
    <label>42</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref43">
    <label>43</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Forcadell, F. J., Aracil, E.,&amp;Úbeda, F. (2019). The Influence of Innovation on Corporate Sustainability in the International Banking Industry. Sustainability, 11, Article No. 3210. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113210
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref44">
    <label>44</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Fornell, C.,&amp;Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref45">
    <label>45</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Fraenkel, J. R.,&amp;Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref46">
    <label>46</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Galvan, J. L.,&amp;Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (7th ed.). Routledge.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref47">
    <label>47</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ganzer, P. P., Chais, C.,&amp;Olea, P. M. (2017). Product, Process, Marketing and Organizational Innovation in Industries of the Flat Knitting Sector. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14, 321-332. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2017.07.002
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref48">
    <label>48</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Fossen, K. V.,&amp;Evans, S. (2018). Product, Service, and Business Model Innovation: A Discussion. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 165-172. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.107
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref49">
    <label>49</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gichungu, Z. N.,&amp;Oloko, M. A. (2015). Relationship between Bank Innovations and Financial Performance of Commercial Banks in Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research, 3, 443-456. &gt;https://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/May-2015/39.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref50">
    <label>50</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K.,&amp;Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of Innovation Types on Firm Performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 662-676. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref51">
    <label>51</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J.,&amp;Krey, N. (2017). Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations. Journal of Advertising, 46, 454-454. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1329496
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref52">
    <label>52</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hanaysha, J. R.,&amp;Al-Shaikh, M. E. (2022). An Examination of Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimensions and Firm Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability, 14, Article No. 11444. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811444
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref53">
    <label>53</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M.,&amp;Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances in International Marketing (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-7979(2009)0000020014
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref54">
    <label>54</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hu, X., Danso, B. A., Mensah, I. A.,&amp;Addai, M. (2020). Does Innovation Type Influence Firm Performance? A Dilemma of Star-Rated Hotels in Ghana. Sustainability, 12, Article No. 9912. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239912
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref55">
    <label>55</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Inusa, A.,&amp;Bambale, A. J. (2017). The Role of Innovation in Enhancing Bank Performance in Nigeria: A Conceptual Approach. Journal of Finance, Accounting, and Management, 8, 1-16. &gt;https://www.proquest.com/docview/1947781587
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref56">
    <label>56</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref57">
    <label>57</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kock, N. (2015). Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11, 1-10. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref58">
    <label>58</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kolapo, F. T., Oluseye Mokuolu, J., Obafemi Dada, S.,&amp;Oluwakemi Adejayan, A. (2021). Strategic Marketing Innovation and Bank Performance in Nigeria. Innovative Marketing, 17, 120-129. &gt;https://doi.org/10.21511/im.17(1).2021.10
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref59">
    <label>59</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kpinpuo, S. D., Akolgo, I. G.,&amp;Naimi, L. (2022). Leading Change and Innovation in Ghana’s Banking Sector: The Mediating Role of Work Autonomy. Industrial and Commercial Training, 55, 1-18. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ict-12-2021-0086
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref60">
    <label>60</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lai, P. (2018). Research Methodology for Novelty Technology. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 15, e201815010. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-1775201815010
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref61">
    <label>61</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Le, T. D.,&amp;Ngo, T. (2020). The Determinants of Bank Profitability: A Cross-Country Analysis. Central Bank Review, 20, 65-73. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbrev.2020.04.001
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref62">
    <label>62</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lei, M.,&amp;Lomax, R. G. (2005). The Effect of Varying Degrees of Nonnormality in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 1-27. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_1
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref63">
    <label>63</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Luthfa, S. (2019). A Study of How Uncertainty Emerges in the Uncertainty-Embedded Innovation Process. Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 46-79. &gt;https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_007.001_0005
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref64">
    <label>64</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mbama, C. I., Ezepue, P., Alboul, L.,&amp;Beer, M. (2018). Digital Banking, Customer Experience and Financial Performance: UK Bank Managers’ Perceptions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12, 432-451. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-01-2018-0026
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref65">
    <label>65</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mostert, K., van Rensburg, C.,&amp;Machaba, R. (2023). Intention to Dropout and Study Satisfaction: Testing Item Bias and Structural Invariance of Measures for South African First-Year University Students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16, 677-692. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-04-2022-0126
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref66">
    <label>66</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Nkem, I.,&amp;Akujinma, A. (2017). Financial Innovation and Efficiency on the Banking Sub-Sector: The Case of Deposit Money Banks and Selected Instruments of Electronic Banking (2006-2014). Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 2, 1-12. &gt;https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2017/29981
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref67">
    <label>67</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     O’brien, R. M. (2007). A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality&amp;Quantity, 41, 673-690. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref68">
    <label>68</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Oduro, R., Andoh, F. K.,&amp;Gadzo, S. G. (2022). Dynamics and Drivers of Competition in the Ghanaian Banking Industry. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 17, 175-191. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-022-00046-y
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref69">
    <label>69</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ohiani, A. S. (2021). Technology Innovation in the Nigerian Banking System: Prospects and Challenges. Rajagiri Management Journal, 15, 2-15. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1108/ramj-05-2020-0018
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref70">
    <label>70</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Omagu, I. E., Asikhia, O. U., Akinlabi, H. B.,&amp;Makinde, G. O. (2021). Effect of Bank Innovation Capability Dimensions on Market Share of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises in Nigeria. World Journal of Innovative Research, 10, 150-155. &gt;https://doi.org/10.31871/wjir.10.4.37
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref71">
    <label>71</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD (2005). Statistical Office of the European Communities. Oslo Manual. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref72">
    <label>72</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2020). Digital Disruption in Banking and Its Impact on Competition. &gt;https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/digital-disruption-in-banking-and-its-impact-on-competition-2020.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref73">
    <label>73</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Rahman, S. M. K., Chowdhury, M. A. F.,&amp;Tania, T. C. (2021). Nexus among Bank Competition, Efficiency, and Financial Stability: A Comprehensive Study in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8, 317-328. &gt;https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0317
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref74">
    <label>74</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Rajapathirana, R. P. J.,&amp;Hui, Y. (2018). Relationship between Innovation Capability, Innovation Type, and Firm Performance. Journal of Innovation&amp;Knowledge, 3, 44-55. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.06.002
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref75">
    <label>75</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Revelle, W.,&amp;Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from α to Ω: A Tutorial. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1395-1411. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000754
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref76">
    <label>76</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref77">
    <label>77</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed Review of Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Education. Educational Technology, 5, 14-23. &gt;https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501453.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref78">
    <label>78</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sai, A. A. (2018). An Exploratory Study of Innovation Adoption in Estonia. Open Journal of Business and Management, 6, 857-889. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2018.64064
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref79">
    <label>79</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sharma, S.,&amp;Kumar, M. (2017). Customer Satisfaction Trends in Banking Sector. A Literature Review. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 25, 375-381. &gt;https://www.academia.edu/33170635/Customer_Satisfaction_trends_in_Banking_Industry_A_Literature_Review
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref80">
    <label>80</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Jovanovic, M.,&amp;Visnjic, I. (2019). Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome‐Based Business Models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37, 158-183. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12516
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref81">
    <label>81</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Souza, A. C. d., Alexandre, N. M. C., Guirardello, E. d. B., Souza, A. C. d., Alexandre, N. M. C.,&amp;Guirardello, E. d. B. (2017). Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: Avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, 26, 649-659. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5123/s1679-49742017000300022
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref82">
    <label>82</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tahir, S. H., Shah, S., Arif, F., Ahmad, G., Aziz, Q.,&amp;Ullah, M. R. (2018). Does Financial Innovation Improve Performance? an Analysis of Process Innovation Used in Pakistan. Journal of Innovation Economics&amp;Management, 27, 195-214. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.027.0195
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref83">
    <label>83</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tidd, J., Bessant, J.,&amp;Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological Market and Organizational Change (3rd ed.). Wiley.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref84">
    <label>84</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Vagnani, G.,&amp;Volpe, L. (2017). Innovation Attributes and Managers’ Decisions about the Adoption of Innovations in Organizations: A Meta-Analytical Review. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1, 107-133. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2017.10.001
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref85">
    <label>85</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Vance, D. E., Talley, M., Azuero, A., Pearce, P. F.,&amp;Christian, B. J. (2013). Conducting an Article Critique for a Quantitative Research Study: Perspectives for Doctoral Students and Other Novice Readers. Nursing: Research and Reviews, 3, 67-75. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2147/nrr.s43374
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref86">
    <label>86</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wang, S., Liu, Q., Dinçer, H.,&amp;Yüksel, S. (2020). Analysis of Innovation Performance for Retail Banking Industry with the Hybrid Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach. Sage Open, 10, 1-13. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927425
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref87">
    <label>87</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Westen, D.,&amp;Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying Construct Validity: Two Simple Measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608-618. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.608
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref88">
    <label>88</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wilson Van Voorhis, C. R.,&amp;Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3, 43-50. &gt;https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref89">
    <label>89</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yaw Obeng, A.,&amp;Boachie, E. (2018). The Impact of It-Technological Innovation on the Productivity of a Bank’s Employee. Cogent Business&amp;Management, 5, Article ID: 1470449. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1470449
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref90">
    <label>90</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yaw Obeng, A.,&amp;Mkhize, P. L. (2019). Assessment of IS‐Innovation Strategic Alignment Factors among Universal Banks in Ghana. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85, 1-13. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12077
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref91">
    <label>91</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     YuSheng, K.,&amp;Ibrahim, M. (2019). Service Innovation and Organisational Performance: Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Management&amp;Entrepreneurship Research, 2, 97-108. &gt;https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v2i3.142
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref92">
    <label>92</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     YuSheng, K.,&amp;Ibrahim, M. (2020). Innovation Capabilities, Innovation Types, and Firm Performance: Evidence from the Banking Sector of Ghana. Sage Open, 10, 1-12. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020920892
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref93">
    <label>93</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhao, Q., Tsai, P.,&amp;Wang, J. (2019). Improving Financial Service Innovation Strategies for Enhancing China’s Banking Industry Competitive Advantage during the Fintech Revolution: A Hybrid MCDM Model. Sustainability, 11, Article No. 1419. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051419
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.140257-ref94">
    <label>94</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zyphur, M. J.,&amp;Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 1-16. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>