Isolde prioritizes a more practical environment of hospitals and medical professionals/centers that are interested in consumables, or the “stuff that machines use,” while Emanuel targets a more theoretical environment of academia like researchers and research institutions that care more about the “machines” themselves. As Isolde shared, however, they both share the “razor-blade” model where they “sell the shavers at cost and make money on the blades.” What provides both groups’ structure stability is their shared offerings of “comprehensive services, such as customized training, workflow optimization, and hotline support from teams of PhDs in case of equipment failure.”
While “imposing the structure of a single revenue model” seems to eliminate many perceived random variables, and provide a baseline from which strategy can evolve from. Yes, this handles complexity, but this can also not be sustainable when catering to consumers. This strategy ends up factoring the consumer out of the equation and becomes product-centric which can prove quite challenging when you are trying to appeal to the market.
If faced with the hypothetical task of merging the two departments, I would emphasize the practical importance of listening and compromise. Understanding that both departments had different histories coming into this merger is crucial, and I would advise that the as this begins, the two departments should meet and begin the new relationship with a shared understanding of collective goals and values. While factors like past success (i.e. who was more profitable, and efficient) do hold merit, they shouldn’t be used in a way that can lead to internal fracturing of the newly merged department. Instead, such points should be phrased as motivating points for the new joint group. There should be a great degree of patience exercised in this process, so the priority should be the merger and not what the merger will yield immediately, as the culture of the department forms.
