Isolde seems to target the medical-tech industry/market like hospitals and labs that require genetic diagnosis, in addition to offering customer support and comprehensive coverage. On the other hand, Emanuel targets research institutions and universities used for studies. In this instance, it seems that Siiquent is geared toward application of their products in the real world/workforce, whereas Teomik specializes in a just as important but different sector, being education. The reason I bring up this difference is because their markets needs and wants differ as a result. Hospitals and genetic labs could prioritize reliability and cost for their technology, and would likely go with Siiquent. However, for the cutting edge universities and research institutions that are forging the future, it’s imperative that they have the latest and greatest technology at any cost to enable them to achieve new goals— reliability, though important, may not be a priority. Siiquent’s razor-blade model of taking a loss in the short term to get customers in the door but making profit in the long term with their chemical and biological consumables. This aligns with their target market of hospitals and labs that are likely to keep a machine for a long period of time, meaning more purchases on the “blades”. Conversely, Teomik has the opposite model, where they make most of their profit on the machine itself compared to the consumables. They’re willing to acknowledge Siiquent’s lower cost for the main machines, but this works in their favor since Teomik is targeting research industries that require the cutting edge— meaning these institutions make frequent changes to their machines to stay up to date on relevant technology.
While each model offers it’s benefits and negatives, I believe it’s important to remain flexible but also not rapidly change since that could cause a loss of your existing customer base. Nonetheless, a single revenue model allows for a clear cut way to approach your market target and invest all of your resources in perfecting that method— there’s less to go wrong since all operations are streamlined. However, as markets change and your partners rebase, your inability to adapt to a changing market (because nothing is forever, especially in this economy) could very well be your demise since your current strategy could become obsolete. This is the benefit of a flexible “letting the company” structure. As the market demands change, your able to keep staying on top. This is especially important when competing since you’re able to improve on competitors flaws and capture market share as you adapt to growing changes. Unfortunately, constantly changing your operational model is not only unnecessarily complicated for your employees/management, but can also be challenging for consumers if good products change and your areas of strength lose their power.
Imagining the last scenario, I would begin by finding areas of overlap and how these areas connect to each business objective/goal and model. If consolidation is feasible with little compromise, it would be best to combine certain operations. If not, finding a middle ground that both departments are able to continue to operate with would be my goal. Overall, I would find a way to create compromise while minimizing loss and attempting to make most happy.
