Siiquent, a DNA-sequencing start-up, and Teomik, a provider of research equipment, are targeting different markets within the same realm, specifically Isolde at Siiquent made money on selling compounds companies would need for DNA diagnosis, and Emanuel at Teomik made money by providing the research machines. Siiquent’s expensive gene-based tech was too costly for many of Germany’s hospitals, so they profited from consumables. Teomilk had always focused on the research market and big funders of research who could pay a high price, resulting in high margins.
The pros and cons of a single revenue model (versus a dual flexible model) are many — pros include giving a company’s employees structure, clarity, and transparency into what the company is aiming to achieve in the next 5-10 years. Agreeing on a single revenue model lays down the foundation for change. Cons, specifically in this scenario, could be that both companies would lose the competitive edge they have in the market by adhering to only one model. By achieving a dual revenue model that allows for more change in the future (with CEOs who are all in and have valuable perspectives on both markets), it would be a good idea to allow the CEOs to work together in parallel, at least at first. A dual revenue model does not allow the companies unlimited control over all with unfocused and constant change. Peter should do some work to help rein these CEOs in as a third voice in their perhaps chaotic conversations.
As a PM assigned to mediating between merging department divisions, I would (intuitively) go about the process like the following:
- Talk to department heads separately about their absolute yes’s and absolute no’s when merging
- It’s good to know in private what each person values most to first figure out common trends and places they might disagree. You as PM can decide what could be the best course of action and help lightly guide and influence the department heads on that path.
- Also good to map out the current organizational models of the departments. What is one department doing that the other could improve on? Having both departments mapped out makes it easy to pull up as a visual when you inevitably have a meeting with everyone.
- Talk to others beyond the department heads to document employee worries, concerns, and excitements. What do employees want to see more of? What do they want to see less of in this merger? This could be useful to bring up in a mediated conversation to help influence decisions (or even make the decision).
- Create an agenda of only the most important priorities between department heads and other relevant figures in the organization. What do you want to accomplish at a first professional meeting? Is it more company priority to get people acquainted or get things done now?
- (Happy hour to get people in a good mood?)
- Have the meeting. You as PM should have enough under your belt to help guide both heads to understand, agree, and finally align on a path forward.
