Alberto Ruocco on Craft, Leadership, and Building Technology That Lasts

UWEBC Podcast Introduction

Customer experience, technology, people, and supply chains are shaping how organizations operate today, but keeping up isn’t easy. At the UWEBC, we connect leaders navigating transformational change every day. Each week, we bring you the journeys and perspectives of Wisconsin leaders shaping the future of business.

From the University of Wisconsin–Madison, this is the UWEBC podcast.

Doug Barton:
Hey, everyone. It’s Doug Barton, director of the UWEBC, and we’re back for another episode of Catalysts in Cars Getting Coffee.

I’m here with Alberto Ruocco. Alberto, say hello.

Alberto Ruocco:
Hey. Good morning, Doug. How are you?

Doug Barton:
I’m good and thirsty.

We’re leaving the parking lot here at Alliant Energy in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. World headquarters, am I right?

Alberto Ruocco:
Yes. Indeed.

Doug Barton:
I’m excited to talk with Alberto.

I think it was probably two or three years ago that we sat down for breakfast nearby and really got a sense of the things we’re all grappling with. I’ve always appreciated his perspective and his contributions.

Alberto Ruocco:
Likewise.

Doug Barton:
We’re just going to jump into the conversation.

Alberto, you’ve announced that you are retiring from this position.

Alberto Ruocco:
I am.

Doug Barton:
Is that next month?

Alberto Ruocco:
One week. One week to go.

Doug Barton:
We’re catching you, one could say, at the tail end of a 40-year career in technology.

Alberto Ruocco:
Yes. I’ve seen a lot of change in 40 years.

Doug Barton:
No doubt.

We’ll talk a little bit about that arc. Then I’d also like to get your take on the latest wave crashing ashore, which is AI and agentic systems.

We may have to do that right after we get coffee, so we’ll be right back with our coffee.

Alberto Ruocco:
Sounds good. We need the coffee.

Doug Barton:
Indeed.

—

Doug Barton:
We’re back with the coffee.

Alberto Ruocco:
We are. Cheers, Doug.

Doug Barton:
Cold coffee.

Alberto Ruocco:
Cold coffee. It’s summer.

Doug Barton:
I don’t know why I’m stuck on hot coffee, no matter what the situation is.

Alberto Ruocco:
That’s an important date, when you get to switch from hot to cold.

Doug Barton:
Indeed.

I just checked that the audio is on. Where were we? Were we talking about your history or your future?

Alberto Ruocco:
You were introducing my very long and winding career.

Doug Barton:
Shall we begin with how you studied architecture with a minor in mechanical engineering?

Alberto Ruocco:
Wow, you have a good memory.

I did study architecture with a minor in mechanical engineering. Along the way, the personal computer was introduced, and I was introduced to the PC. I became intrigued by it.

I wasn’t thinking that I would necessarily go into a technology career at the time, but I was definitely curious about it.

Eventually, when I started doing internships and working, it became more of a possibility than what I had originally imagined.

I also realized I wasn’t that good an architect. At least, I wasn’t very good at drawing.

I thought, “If I learn how to use a CAD system, maybe I can improve.” That pushed me toward technology.

Doug Barton:
Indeed.

Alberto Ruocco:
People sometimes ask, “How do you use your architecture background?”

If you think about a building, it’s a set of subsystems that all have to come together to provide protection, safety, and climate control.

Technology is like that, too. It’s a set of subsystems and components of a stack.

That logical breakdown of the problem and the design has always made sense to me.

Doug Barton:
It’s the planfulness and thoughtfulness required to make a system of systems work.

Alberto Ruocco:
Exactly.

It took me a long time to realize that when people said “design thinking,” that was essentially what I studied. They just gave it a name.

Doug Barton:
Exactly.

We recently had Phil Gilbert, the former head of design at IBM and author of Irresistible Change, speak at our Wisconsin Digital Symposium.

I think the key lesson that comes from that is that, with all the changing winds of technology and capabilities, there is still something to keep first.

You have to keep in mind the business outcomes you’re aiming for, whether those outcomes are for customers, employees, or others.

Alberto Ruocco:
Absolutely.

When anyone in the technology industry, whether it’s a service provider, vendor, or technology provider, loses sight of that, they’ve lost their way.

Technology in and of itself is interesting and fascinating, but it’s a machine designed to serve a purpose.

Doug Barton:
It has to enable something.

The other thing that comes to mind is the word “architecture.” I know you studied it in a different context, but I think architecture is going to be one of the most important things for us to get right about our future.

Some people talk about data quality, and that’s an input into a well-formed system, especially with the advent and presence of AI and agentic systems.

But our architecture also has a fundamental new demand.

People can go from an idea to a technology artifact, and then they want to deploy it. They don’t want to vibe-code something and have it sit on their hard drive. They may want to go beyond that.

The notion of architecture, and who has permission to create technology, processes, and artifacts, is going to require thoughtful architecture or it’s going to become a mess.

Alberto Ruocco:
In the context of creating something for yourself, it may not be as significant.

If you’re creating something for a company or business and trying to serve customers, it’s very different.

The word “permission” is important because the notion of designing security in becomes more and more essential as the elements of the architecture become increasingly virtualized from where you’re sitting.

Where is the server? Where is the storage? What part of the network am I navigating?

At some level, you need to know that all of that is secure as you’re creating or consuming data.

Doug Barton:
That’s a good point.

Let’s unpack your career a little bit, and then we’ll go to the current moment we’re in.

You’ve served in some interesting capacities. You were counsel to a lot of major CIOs for a period of time.

Alberto Ruocco:
I was.

Doug Barton:
Then you worked for several consulting firms. West Monroe is one that I followed for quite a while. They’re doing really innovative work, and you were the CIO for that team.

What is it like to be on both sides of the table?

Alberto Ruocco:
I use the same expression. I have been on both sides, and there are things you learn and appreciate about each.

In my own experience, I’ve enjoyed being in the CIO role more because it gave me the opportunity to drive more meaningful change over a longer period of time.

Doug Barton:
A longer horizon.

Alberto Ruocco:
Exactly.

That’s just my own makeup. Everyone is a little different, but I get a lot of satisfaction from that.

Going back and forth was intentional.

There was a point fairly well into my consulting career when I thought, “I understand this. Now I want to know what it’s like to be in the chair.”

I can’t say that every period of time in the chair was perfect or without issues.

But I learned a lot by observing other CIOs, mostly good and some not so good, and applying those lessons to my own situation.

The process of advising, whether as a consultant in a strategic sense or when I was at Gartner as an advisor, is interesting and intellectually challenging.

But as someone interested in practical, real solutions that stick, I was too far removed from the action.

I wanted to get back into the action. That was the difference for me in terms of career choice.

Doug Barton:
Very cool.

I know this is always challenging, but can you summarize in a few words what your advice would be for people in the CIO seat today?

Alberto Ruocco:
Humility is very important.

There’s a high premium in some circles on technical competence or expertise. But in my view, it’s impossible to be an expert on all the technologies you need to know all the time.

You have to learn to assume that what you knew yesterday may or may not apply today.

Having the humility to accept and recognize that drives me toward wanting to educate myself in real time when necessary.

In some ways, that’s freeing.

Client-server architecture, for example, may not be something I need to worry about anymore. Fundamentally, I need to think about different types of architectures today.

Leave the things that no longer matter behind and continue to educate yourself on the latest developments.

Do that using every available source.

Vendor partners can be sources. Consulting firms can be sources. Academic institutions can be sources.

I try to tap into all of those along the way.

Doug Barton:
Let me insert here that I noticed you’ve been of service to the Erdman Center at the Wisconsin School of Business as a board member.

It’s known for service and operations management and is a source of strong technology strategy and product management education.

Alberto Ruocco:
I love that program.

I did a little research into what else is available across the United States in a similar format, and I don’t think there are many other programs quite like it.

That’s one of the reasons I was interested in being an advisor.

Part of what was interesting about the experience was the backgrounds of the students, not only what they were coming from, but where they were interested in going.

Many of them were specifically interested in technology.

One of the students I worked with is now working for a cybersecurity firm as a product manager. That might be what you expect, but there are many different types of product management roles in the market today that this program can prepare people for.

Doug Barton:
A little bit about my own background: I studied accounting and finance as an undergraduate.

Alberto Ruocco:
I’m sorry.

Doug Barton:
No kidding. Tell me about it.

But it turned out to be a great foundation.

After a couple of years with Pricewaterhouse and earning my CPA, I knew what it was like to inhabit finance roles.

I became a product manager and then a product marketer selling to finance leaders. CFOs became my focus.

That included reporting, close and reporting, planning, forecasting, and monitoring results.

The first CPM Magic Quadrant that Gartner produced included our company.

I do want to come back as an analyst in my next life and make other people’s lives difficult.

Alberto Ruocco:
I want to come back as an architectural historian, but that’s a different story.

Doug Barton:
There you go.

That notion of graduates learning product management and then applying it in a particular area of passion or interest is powerful.

Alberto Ruocco:
Absolutely.

The evolution of understanding a technology solution as a product, using the language of consumer products, was a powerful mindset change for technology.

That’s something I’ve tried to establish as a way of understanding what we do, even within the context of a corporate technology function.

It serves technologists well because they begin to frame the work the way they would think about a product, with periodic improvements and a defined scope of functionality.

It also helps end users who aren’t technologists understand it better.

Doug Barton:
It creates common language and a translational space.

Alberto Ruocco:
Exactly.

Doug Barton:
Early in my career, it felt like we were just learning how to do this.

That was 30 years ago, but Geoffrey Moore’s work around the whole product, Crossing the Chasm, and technology adoption was important.

That work was built in part on Everett Rogers’ earlier work around the technology adoption lifecycle.

Then we got language from Clayton Christensen around jobs to be done.

That was another unlock because you could look at a person’s work as a collection of tasks or jobs they perform, some of which can be offloaded.

That’s why I’m optimistic about the future. We do have a foundation to stand on as we move into an intelligent future.

But it also brings up something we talked about before we hit record.

There are two views of the future that dominate the popular press.

One is the accelerationist view. GDP goes from growing at 2% a year to 10% a year, and the compound effects of that would be incredible.

It could create a world of abundance. It could also mean consuming our planet at an increasing rate. There are darker considerations.

Some people believe that will happen.

The other view, which has become more dominant for me, is that there are bottlenecks.

Any new technology creates a shock of supply, but it isn’t until that technology is woven into the systems and the fabric of how we deliver value that it produces its full effect.

Think about the earliest days of the steam engine.

It could produce work. It wasn’t horses doing the work, and it wasn’t people doing the work. It was an engine.

But until that engine was attached to something mechanized and made to drive gears or equipment, it wasn’t converted into its full potential use.

You can think about the 17 links in a chain. Some are weaker than others.

Alberto Ruocco:
That’s a good metaphor.

Thinking about the value chain holistically is important.

Your point about understanding where the potential weaknesses are is critical.

People don’t always think about the full process end to end, from raw material to finished good, but a lot happens in between.

The term you used about components of work is relevant.

If you start breaking down what agents are doing, that’s essentially what we’re doing now.

At some point, that set of agents might come together and take over more of the value chain.

I don’t think that’s going to happen everywhere. I think there will be some places where it does happen.

The counterargument to looking at an existing value chain and identifying the weak points is that some people would say that isn’t the right way to look at it.

They would say you should step back and think about it completely differently.

That can serve you well, too.

It doesn’t always get you to the best answer, but you need to challenge yourself both ways.

There is inherent value in the status quo of that value chain. At some point, someone designed it in a certain way for a certain reason, and understanding that is important.

Doug Barton:
It also exists in a particular context where those choices may have been valuable.

Jim Barksdale, who was involved with Mosaic and then Netscape and was a former IBMer, once said there are only two business strategies: bundling and unbundling.

To some degree, you can see that everywhere.

What is streaming Netflix but an unbundling of cable, delivered over the internet in a highly personalized way?

That was an unbundling. Now people are rebundling those services.

Hulu, Disney, and other properties are coming back together.

Alberto Ruocco:
One of the things that’s interesting is that we’ve been thinking about and designing artificial intelligence systems for a long time.

For the broader population that isn’t involved in technology, this is a brand-new thing to think about.

For technologists, it’s more of an evolution.

Now we’re beginning to ask, “How can we really leverage what this might do?”

We’re beginning to design technology in such a way that the human-technology interface begins to blur in a positive way.

I’m not necessarily a proponent of taking the human out of the loop in every situation.

But designing a system with the idea that I can interact with it in a more direct way is powerful.

Doug Barton:
We also have to consider the cognitive load that humans carry in that partnership.

That’s being studied quite a bit in human-computer interaction and related areas.

I just noticed that we’ve been talking for a while.

Alberto Ruocco:
Have we?

Doug Barton:
We have.

I’m going to plug in our next destination, which is to get you back to the office. Then I have a surprise for you.

Alberto Ruocco:
Uh-oh.

Doug Barton:
I think it’s a surprise.

The whole idea of Yale got me thinking. Yale is famous for many things. It’s a great school, and it’s also famous for its drama program.

Somehow, I got bad information from my AI tools that James Lipton was connected to it.

James Lipton hosted Inside the Actors Studio. He has been the source of many memes and is also the source of my eight questions to wrap this up.

Alberto Ruocco:
Oh, my gosh.

Doug Barton:
I have them ready.

Alberto Ruocco:
Are these quick-answer questions?

Doug Barton:
Yes. They’d better be.

Let me explain this.

He said the best way to understand a life is to ask about craft.

You’ve been practicing a craft, I submit.

What’s your favorite word in the technology vocabulary?

Alberto Ruocco:
Binary.

Doug Barton:
Nice. Zeros and ones.

What’s your least favorite word?

Alberto Ruocco:
Paradigm.

Doug Barton:
That’s a good one. Synergy is right up there.

Alberto Ruocco:
Synergy would be up there.

Doug Barton:
Excuse the wording, but this is how he asks the question: What turns you on about a technology challenge?

Alberto Ruocco:
It’s inherently innovative.

It’s an attempt to do something better, newer, faster, or stronger.

Doug Barton:
Creative.

Alberto Ruocco:
Exactly. It’s something new.

Doug Barton:
On the other side of that, what turns you off about organizational transformation?

Alberto Ruocco:
Politics.

Doug Barton:
Politics are real.

Alberto Ruocco:
They’re inherent in human interaction, but it’s a lot of work to manage them.

Doug Barton:
I like to think of politics as coming from the idea of many interests.

Having many interests can sometimes be positive.

Alberto Ruocco:
The thing I say is that if you put two people in a room, there are politics.

It isn’t inherently bad.

Perhaps in this country, we often view it that way. I grew up in Italy, and we debated politics all the time. It was almost a sport.

But it is a real thing that you have to recognize and manage.

Doug Barton:
I love the idea of reconciling interests.

I’m not the only one who has to be careful. I’m just impatient, which is why I get frustrated with it.

UWEBC Podcast Closing

If you want to keep the conversation going, check out the UWEBC website for more events, resources, and details on what’s coming next. Thanks for listening, and from the UWEBC, we’re glad you joined us.