Isolde mainly targets itself at hospitals. They figured out how to provide the consumables for a bit less than the fixed reimbursements that hospitals and got from insurers and national health service so they were able to position themselves as a revenue generator. They focus a lot on strong customer support as well, constantly adjusting themselves to fit customer needs. Emanuel focuses more on research markets, largely helping scientists conduct genomics studies and publish in various scientific journals. Since they had been selling their products for half a century, they focused primarily on the machines. Their respective business/revenue models align with their markets as they are targeting and providing the related resources to the customers they are targeting. Since Isolde is more consumer facing, they have broader customer service offerings. Since Emanuel is more research/academia facing, they focus more on the technicalities of the equipment.
The pros of “imposing the structure of a single revenue model” is the increased simplicity that aligns with having one type of structure that they are moving forward with. Rather than trying to balance multiple stakeholders and opinions, there is a clear path forward between the merger of the two companies. The perils of imposing this structure as said by Isolde is that “what matters to us is customers, competitors, and employees”. In a rapidly changing market, while it can seem easier to moved forward with a singular revenue model you are not necessarily adapting and changing to what is happening around you. The flexible structure allows both companies to be “nimble, flexible, and ingenious to keep up with a dynamic marketplace.”
If I was assigned as the PM in charge of mediating the discussion between the two department heads, I would first have to a deeper understanding of the company from the CEO and leading executives. I would like to learn more about their financials, pricing models, leading areas of revenue generation, and also get a better understanding of the company goals for the next 5, 10, 20 years separately. From there, I would be able to better understand the areas of overlap between the companies and the areas that seem most redundant and might make most sense to merge in this new acquisition. From there, looking past the companies themselves and at the larger competitive landscape of the industry and current and future market demands, I would use these to points to ensure a fair merging process between the divisions.
