Bharat International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
ISSN 0000-0000 | e-ISSN 0000-0000 | EN HI
BIJHSS
BIJHSS Bharat International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
Published by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Hindi University अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी हिन्दी विश्वविद्यालय
Articles

FinTech Adoption and Operational Performance: The Mediating Roles of Digital Process and Service Innovation

Ahmed fayez almajali (1)
1. Department of Banking and Financial Sciences, Faculty of Finance and Business, The World Islamic Sciences & Education University, Amman -Jordan
Received2026-03-16
Revised2026-04-02
Accepted2026-07-07
Published2026-08-23

Abstract

FinTech Adoption and Operational Performance: The Mediating Roles of Digital Process and Service Innovation

Abstract

This study examines whether digital innovation capability mediates the relationship between FinTech adoption and operational performance. Grounded in dynamic capabilities theory and informed by the resource-based view, the study distinguishes three forms of FinTech adoption (digital payments, cloud-based financial services, and mobile financial services), two dimensions of digital innovation capability (digital process innovation and digital service innovation), and two operational outcomes (operational efficiency and process quality). Survey responses from 250 participants were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4, with 5,000 bootstrap subsamples. Composite reliability ranged from 0.909 to 0.938, and average variance extracted ranged from 0.622 to 0.673.

All 10 structural paths were statistically significant. Cloud-based financial services had the strongest association with digital process innovation (β = 0.306, p < 0.001). Digital process innovation (β = 0.377, p < 0.001) and digital service innovation (β = 0.374, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of operational efficiency. The model explained 42.2% of the variance in operational efficiency and 33.1% of the variance in process quality. All 12 specific indirect effects were statistically significant, supporting the mediating roles of digital process and service innovation. These findings suggest that the operational value associated with FinTech adoption depends in part on how organizations use it to redesign processes and develop services.

Keywords — FinTech adoption, digital innovation capability, process innovation, service innovation, operational performance, PLS-SEM.

Downloads

1Abstract views
0PDF downloads

References

  1. Abou-Foul, M., Ruiz-Alba, J. L., & López-Tenorio, P. J. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence capabilities on servitization: The moderating role of absorptive capacity—A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Business Research, 157, Article 113609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113609  
  2. Amnas, M. B., Selvam, M., & Parayitam, S. (2025). Unveiling FinTech adoption: An integrated approach of TAM and E-S-QUAL models for assessing the impact of service quality. South Asian Journal of Marketing, 6(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJM-01-2024-0007
  3. Amnas, M. B., Selvam, M., Raja, M., Santhoshkumar, S., & Parayitam, S. (2023). Understanding the determinants of FinTech adoption: Integrating UTAUT2 with trust theoretic model. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(12), Article 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16120505 
  4. Bag, S., Rahman, M. S., Sharma, J., Chiarini, A., Srivastava, S. K., & Gupta, S. (2025). Building digital technology and innovative lean management capabilities for enhancing operational performance: An empirical study. Production Planning & Control, 36(8), 1009–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2327344 
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173  
  7.  Becker, J.-M., Cheah, J.-H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM's most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0474
  8. Blichfeldt, H., & Faullant, R. (2021). Performance effects of digital technology adoption and product & service innovation—A process-industry perspective. Technovation, 105, Article 102275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102275 
  9. Bommer, W. H., Milevoj, E., & Rana, S. (2023). A meta-analytic examination of the antecedents explaining the intention to use fintech. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(3), 886– 909. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2022-0170
  10. Campanella, F., Ferri, L., Serino, L., & Zampella, A. (2026). Driving sustainability: How FinTech transforms SDG performance in SMEs. Journal of Global Responsibility, 17(2), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2025-0015
  11. Cheah, J.-H., Magno, F., & Cassia, F. (2024). Reviewing the SmartPLS 4 software: The latest features and enhancements. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 12(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-023-00266-y
  12. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604385-10
  13. Chirumalla, K. (2021). Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process industries: A dynamic capabilities approach. Technovation, 105, Article 102256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102256
  14. Choi, Y., Han, S., & Lee, C. (2024). Exploring drivers of fintech adoption among elderly consumers. Technology in Society, 78, Article 102669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102669
  15. Chowdhury, S., Åkesson, M., & Thomsen, M. (2021). Service innovation in digitalized product platforms: An illustration of the implications of generativity on remote diagnostics of public transport buses. Technology in Society, 65, Article 101589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101589
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  17. Csiki, O., Demeter, K., & Losonci, D. (2023). How to improve firm performance?—The role of production capabilities and routines. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2022-0221
  18. Cuthbertson, R. W., & Furseth, P. I. (2022). Digital services and competitive advantage: Strengthening the links between RBV, KBV, and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 152, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.030
  19. Dwivedi, P., Alabdooli, J. I., & Dwivedi, R. (2021). Role of FinTech adoption for competitiveness and performance of the bank: A study of banking industry in UAE. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 16(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943- 021-00033-9
  20. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097- 0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
  21. Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Veiga, P. M. (2024). The effects of knowledge spillovers, digital capabilities, and innovation on firm performance: A moderated mediation model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, Article 123086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123086
  22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  23. Fosso Wamba, S., Queiroz, M. M., & Trinchera, L. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence-enabled dynamic capability on environmental performance: The mediation effect of a data-driven culture in France and the USA. International Journal of Production Economics, 268, Article 109131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.109131
  24. Gangwar, H., Shameem, M., Patel, S., Koohang, A., & Sharma, A. (2025). Understanding determinants of GenAI usage and its effect on SCM performance using dynamic capability view. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 125(3), 1110–1133. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2024- 0773
  25. Griffiths, P. D. R., Mukherjee, A., & Sinha, P. N. (2025). Determinants of fintech diffusion in emerging markets: A service ecosystem perspective. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 20(13), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2024-0678
  26. Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C. M., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2023). Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 111, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.03.010
  27. Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C. M., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2025). PLS-SEM and reflective constructs: A response to recent criticism and a constructive path forward. Industrial Marketing Management, 128, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.05.003
  28. Ha, J., Nam, C., & Kim, S. (2024). A systematic review of mobile payment literature: What has been studied and what should be studied? Telecommunications Policy, 48(7), Article 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102795
  29.  Hair, J. F., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027
  30. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage
  31. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  32. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
  33. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11- 2018-0203
  34. Heaton, S., Teece, D., & Agronin, E. (2023). Dynamic capabilities and governance: An empirical investigation of financial performance of the higher education sector. Strategic Management Journal, 44(2), 520–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3444
  35. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  36. Jafri, J. A., Mohd Amin, S. I., Abdul Rahman, A., & Mohd Nor, S. (2024). A systematic literature review of the role of trust and security on Fintech adoption in banking. Heliyon, 10(1), Article e22980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22980
  37. Kajol, K., Singh, R., & Paul, J. (2022). Adoption of digital financial transactions: A review of literature and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 184, Article 121991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121991
  38. Kim, Y. H., & Swink, M. (2021). Contingency role of a supplier's operational efficiency in the customer relationship–performance links. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(8), 1379–1403. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2020-0382
  39. Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, Article 102466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466
  40. Li, L., Zhu, W., Wei, L., & Yang, S. (2022). How can digital collaboration capability boost service innovation? Evidence from the information technology industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, Article 121830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121830
  41. Lu, H. T., Li, X., & Yuen, K. F. (2023). Digital transformation as an enabler of sustainability innovation and performance—Information processing and innovation ambidexterity perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, Article 122860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122860
  42. Marchiori, D. M., Rodrigues, R. G., Popadiuk, S., & Mainardes, E. W. (2022). The relationship between human capital, information technology capability, innovativeness and organizational performance: An integrated approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, Article 121526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121526
  43. Merín-Rodrigáñez, J., Dasí, À., & Alegre, J. (2024). Digital transformation and firm performance in innovative SMEs: The mediating role of business model innovation. Technovation, 134, Article 103027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103027
  44. Muthukannan, P., Tan, B., Tan, F. T. C., & Leong, C. (2021). Novel mechanisms of scalability of financial services in an emerging market context: Insights from Indonesian fintech ecosystem. International Journal of Information Management, 61, Article 102403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102403
  45.