Isolde’s Siiquent targeted hospitals and diagnostic labs operating under strict regulation and tight reimbursement structures. Predictably, this business gravitated toward a razor-blade model where instruments sold at cost, with sustainable profits coming from consumables and test-by-test pricing. Emanuel’s Teomik, on the other hand, served research labs, universities, and high-funding institutions unconstrained by reimbursement caps. His team earned its margins on sophisticated, patent-protected instruments while treating consumables as a competitive battlefield rather than a profit center. Thus, each model aligned cleanly with the economic logic of its respective customers. From there, we can see why it would be difficult to join both of these efforts under one model.
Standardizing onto one structure promises clarity, strategic coherence, and operational efficiency. A unified model can reduce customer confusion and internal competition, and can make it easier for leadership to plan, forecast, and measure performance. But the perils are equally real: enforcing a single model risks flattening vital differences across customer needs and removing the flexibility that has historically helped both units adapt to competitive pressures.
If the CEO mandates a merger and I, as PM, am tasked with mediating the process, I would not begin with solutions. I would begin with structure. First, I would create a shared fact base: what each market segment values, where margins originate, where competitors are eating our lunch, and which offerings are truly differentiated. Next, I would guide the department heads through a joint mapping exercise: charting customer journeys across both markets and marking where revenue is created, where value is delivered, and where friction emerges.
From there, I would scaffold the conversation around principles rather than personalities or legacy habits, guiding myself based on the outcomes must the merged unit optimize for, be that stability, growth, differentiation, etc. Once principles are explicit, the group can evaluate revenue model options against shared criteria rather than entrenched preferences. Finally, I would create space for experimentation: instead of committing prematurely to one model, design small pilots that test hybrid approaches in each market, with success metrics agreed upon in advance. My ultimate goal would be to strike the right balance between flexibility and structure.
