Differing Target Markets and Business Models
Isolde and Emanuel have almost opposite business models to align themselves with the needs of their differing target markets. Isolde or Siiquent earns its profit on the stuff that the machines use, such as biological and chemical compounds, test kits, and other consumables. Therefore, the market that Isolde targets is hospitals and labs that receive fixed reimbursements for these consumables. Their business model is to sell low-margin, but high volume consumables that need consistent replacement. This aligns with their market as the gene-based diagnostics market have repeated use for consumables in testing and diagnostics procedures, generating recurring revenue. On the flip side, Emanuel or Teomik makes it profits on selling expensive biological research equipment and materials (machines). This incentivizes Emanuel to target the research market that is seeking cutting-edge gene-based scientific technologies. Their business model is focused on selling high-margin, rarely replaced equipment, where they receive high profit on each one-time purchase. This requires their consumers to make high, upfront investments in their technology. This aligns with their target market as the research market commonly invests a lot of capital in highly specialized tools necessary to conduct their very precise procedures.
Pros and Perils of Single Revenue Model Structure
Some of the pros of imposing a single revenue model structure instead of letting the company to continue is to improve operational efficiency and increase strategic alignment. By focusing on one revenue model, the company can downsize the number of sales and operations employees, leading to long-term cost savings. Additionally, it would be easier for both units to align with the company’s broader goals and long-term direction. For instance, it may be easier for the company to be the market leader in cheaper alternative consumables rather than try to constantly innovate the expensive, single-purchase machines to stay on top of the trend. The resource tradeoff between these two units could make them lose market share in both original target markets.
Some perils of a single revenue model are loss of flexibility, employee resistance, and diminished competitive advantage. Consolidating the units under a single model can make them slower to adapt to quick market changes or customer needs, an essential characteristic in the biotech space. Additionally, both units have been successful in establishing their competitive advantages in niche markets, one focused on a cheaper cost and one focused on its innovative technology. Soley focusing in one domain could require sacrificing in the other domain. Additionally, it seems like the employees would not be in favor of a single model which could lead to friction and lower productivity.
Mediating Conversation as a PM
If I were mediating the interaction between department heads as a PM, my first step would be to establish a group consensus on a company-wide goal. For instance, the group could align on a high-level goal of providing innovative, high quality products to ensure customer satisfaction. This alignment would serve as a unifying objective that both departments can rally around and set the foundation for a constructive dialogue that begins at a middle-ground. Once that is agreed upon, I would guide the conversation towards identifying more specific synergies between the two units such as shared market insights, customer needs, or collaborative technology integrations. This would allow us to integrate the most significant parts of each unit into one unified business model rather than just completely cutting one unit out as a group. During the conversation, I would try to act as a neutral mediator, ensuring both sides feel heard, and giving my 3rd party opinion as needed, but not to impose my opinion onto them forcefully. Because I know these conversations can quickly get heated, I would encourage the group to take regular breaks if the conversation became unproductive or emotionally driven. In these times, I would remind the group the previously established company-wide objective for the merger and try to have them see their counterparts perspective objectively. Lastly, one of the largest risk the merger is employee resentment which could drop productivity or morale. To minimize this risk, I would set clear goals for the merger in terms of employee adoption and customer feedback. By the end of the conversation, I would encourage both parties to emphasize the merger’s purpose to the company to their respective units and set regular check-ups to see if any adjustments are needed.
—
Mina Ky
