CEO Insights Magazine

Banking services providers operate in an environment where technological decisions carry consequences far beyond operational efficiency. Regulatory requirements continue to evolve, cybersecurity expectations are intensifying, and emerging technologies such as AI are creating new possibilities for automation and decision support. Yet banks cannot pursue transformation with the same freedom as less regulated industries. Every technology shift must be considered against security, reliability, compliance, governance and the continuity of critical services.

This challenge forms the backdrop to our conversation with Alberto Bindi Scoponi, HRM, and Davide V. Gobbo, CTO, Banca Zarattini & Co. SA, around the case, ‘Rebuilding Bank IT from the Ground Up — From Reactive Compliance to a Proactive Technology Strategy.’ Their experience illustrates how technology transformation can become a broader organizational exercise involving not only IT, but also people, skills, governance, risk and long-term strategic readiness.

Alongside his banking career, Alberto has been involved in research and teaching in economics and HRM. This experience led him to examine a fundamental decision-making question: how can organizations ensure they are solving the right problem before selecting a solution? This thinking underpins PRISM–LEAD–SELF, a structured approach that begins with stakeholder perspectives, interprets organizational context and evaluates potential action through Strategic, Ethical, Legal and Financial considerations. Its central principle is straightforward: diagnose before deciding. The approach is also the subject of a paper currently under peer review at the American Journal of Management.

From the technology perspective, Davide’s role as CTO/CIO is centered on connecting transformation with the bank’s future strategy. His focus is on preserving security and reliability while simplifying infrastructure, developing new capabilities and introducing AI where it delivers tangible value. Together, their perspectives demonstrate why meaningful banking transformation begins not with technology itself, but with a clear diagnosis of what the organization needs to become.

What organizational challenge triggered this HR and technology transformation, and what strategic objective did you set out to achieve?

Alberto: We realized that our technology strategy had gradually become too reactive. While individual regulatory changes were managed effectively, the recurring pattern showed that external developments were increasingly shaping our technology agenda. Our objective was therefore not simply to modernize IT, but to strengthen the bank’s ability to absorb and anticipate change without compromising the stability and control required in banking. This meant looking beyond technology in isolation. Technology simplification, organizational readiness and people development had to progress together. The challenge was to protect what was already working well while building the capabilities, architecture and mindset required to prepare the organization for tomorrow.

How did HR, Technology and other stakeholders collaborate, and where did their priorities differ during the transformation?

Davide: HR became involved very early and, in some respects, was ahead of Technology in thinking about future skills and organizational readiness. Technology, meanwhile, was understandably focused on maintaining stability and security. Rather than treating this difference as resistance, we used it constructively. Technology retained responsibility for architecture, infrastructure, security and technical feasibility, while HR focused on skills and people readiness. Board and C-level sponsorship provided direction, while Risk, Compliance and Audit contributed perspectives that became increasingly important. Small pilots helped us reconcile different priorities by generating evidence, allowing us to introduce change progressively without sacrificing reliability or weakening existing safeguards.

What did your organizational diagnosis reveal about the bank’s technology environment, capabilities and readiness for change?

Davide: Our starting point revealed an interesting paradox. By current standards, our technological maturity was relatively low, with a largely on-premise environment, no cloud and several legacy applications. At the same time, the environment offered very high levels of stability and security. That meant an aggressive rip-and-replace strategy would have been unrealistic. We had to distinguish ambition from readiness and pursue simplification, reskilling and a gradual hybrid-cloud path. One of the most important insights was that success itself can create inertia. Stability is a genuine strength, but it is not the same as maturity. Something can perform extremely well today without necessarily being prepared for tomorrow.

How did you balance strategic ambition with financial, legal, ethical and risk considerations when deciding how quickly to move?

Alberto: We wanted to ensure that no single consideration dominated the decision. Strategy established where we wanted to go, Legal defined the boundaries, Financial considerations imposed discipline, and Ethical considerations brought attention to people, responsibility and professional judgement. The strongest tension was between Financial and Legal considerations because transformation requires investment, while remaining reactive also creates costs and potential regulatory exposure. The question was therefore not simply what transformation would cost, but what the cost of not changing could eventually become. Making these dimensions explicit helped us evaluate trade-offs more clearly and establish the safeguards, governance and conditions necessary to move forward responsibly.

How did the PRISM–LEAD–SELF framework improve your decision-making, and what did HR and Technology learn from the process?

Alberto: The framework helped us separate the symptom, the underlying explanation and the appropriate intervention. The visible symptom was the repeated need for ad hoc responses to regulatory change, but the deeper issue was that our technology strategy had become too reactive. PRISM helped us understand the organizational dimensions involved, LEAD encouraged us to distinguish ambition from actual readiness, and SELF made the strategic, legal, financial and ethical trade-offs explicit. It also strengthened cross-functional understanding. We recognized that modernization could not be treated solely as an infrastructure project. Technology, workforce capabilities, governance and organizational readiness had to evolve together if the transformation was to be sustainable.

What outcomes are already visible, and what advice would you give leaders managing similarly complex HR–technology transformations?

Davide: Three changes are already visible. Technology is becoming more proactive, workforce development is now integrated into the technology roadmap, and Audit, Risk and Compliance are increasingly involved in shaping new tools rather than simply reviewing them later. More importantly, HR and Technology increasingly approach transformation as a shared organizational challenge instead of two parallel workstreams. The transformation is still ongoing, so some outcomes remain preliminary, but the direction is clearer. My advice would be not to begin with a technology or preferred solution. Start by defining the real problem, understand the organization and capabilities you have today, and then determine what you need for tomorrow.