Isolde and Emmanuel target the two separate markets of the razor-blade model. Isolde’s Siiquent targets the hospital market, selling everything needed for gene-based diagnosis. Siiquent brings in revenue through stuff, while Emanuel’s Teomik made its money through the machinery market, targeting research labs and universities.
Proceeding with a single revenue model could make it more clear what should be prioritized in the newly combined company. With everyone working towards the same goal, some costs could potentially be cut by reducing overlap.
Allowing the company to continue its flexibility could create some intra-company issues if one of the revenue models is not designated as the primary source of revenue. If both models are viewed as equally important, then issues could arise when changes are required that would benefit one model and disadvantage the other. However, maintaining this flexibility could allow for more personalized attention for customers from the separate teams.
If I was assigned to mediate this interaction, I would first inform the department heads of the CEO’s priorities and vision for the merged company. I would make it clear that we do not necessarily have to choose one process or the other; instead, we can take bits and pieces from each team that would be valuable towards working towards the uniform goal of the new company. When all parties are clearly on the same page about the overall vision, I would then have the department heads present their respective team’s top priorities and revenue model. This would transition to a healthy discussion where the potential risks and benefits are clearly outlined. If a consensus could not be reached, then it might be necessary to turn to the executive board in order to decide how this merging process can best satisfy the company’s new vision.
