Isolde’s Siiquent division targets hospitals and diagnostic labs, focusing on gene-based diagnosis. They basically use the classic “razor and blade” model – selling machines at cost but making their money on consumables like reagents and test kits. This makes sense for their market since hospitals face tight budgets and regulatory requirements. By offering value-added services and flexible payment options (like pay-per-test), they help customers navigate the complex healthcare environment.
Emanuel’s Teomik division serves research institutions and universities doing genetic research. They make their profits on selling sophisticated instruments rather than consumables, since research grants often cover expensive equipment purchases. Their customers care more about cutting-edge capabilities than ongoing costs. The free expert support and consulting helps position them as a premium research partner.
Peter’s desire for a unified revenue model has some merit – it could reduce internal confusion, streamline operations, and present a clearer value proposition to customers. However, I think Isolde and Emanuel make compelling points about the risks of being too rigid. Their flexible approach has helped them adapt to different customer needs and competitive threats. The market dynamics and customer priorities are quite different between diagnostic and research settings.
As a PM mediating this merger, I’d focus on facilitating productive discussions rather than pushing for a particular solution. I would start with customer journey mapping for both segments to deeply understand their different needs, constraints and priorities. This would provide objective data for decision-making. Secondly, I would have each team document their current revenue model’s strengths and weaknesses. Look for opportunities where flexibility has truly added value versus areas where it’s created inefficiency. Thirdly, I would run scenario planning workshops exploring different hybrid approaches (perhaps maintaining segment-specific revenue models but standardizing certain elements like service offerings). Finally, I would create clear evaluation criteria upfront (financial metrics but also customer satisfaction, market share goals, operational efficiency etc.) and set regular checkpoints to assess progress and adjust course based on market feedback.
The key is maintaining open dialogue and staying focused on customer value rather than getting stuck in philosophical debates about strategy. While a perfectly clean revenue model might look good on paper, the reality is that different market segments often require different approaches.
