1. Which markets do Isolde and Emanuel target respectively? How do their respective business/revenue models align with their markets?
Isolde’s business, Siiquence, mainly targets hospitals and labs in need of materials for gene-based diagnosis. In her words, Siiquence makes “money off the razors” rather than selling the equipment for running these tests, which works in their markets that already have the necessary technology or resources, and are looking for quality consumable materials. The business is focused on adjusting to customer feedback on their materials, and assists them in using them. Emanuel targets research labs and universities, providing the machines and instruments to run procedures for gene-based studies. Teomik focuses on the devices themselves, as these markets would have more difficulty obtaining proper equipment.
2. What are the pros and perils of “imposing the structure of a single revenue model” vs. “letting [the company] continue on its flexible way”?
Having a single revenue model can be more reliable, as known models would be tried and true for past business. A new business can assess themselves and compare to similar businesses in order to adopt similar models, assuming that the model is working well. It can also provide a more clean hierarchy that the business can follow, making it easier to graft to the overall structure. Since the model is known, it also makes it easy to keep records and maintain an organized structure. However, each model would naturally have its own flaws. In keeping such a rigid model, it can be difficult to adapt to unexpected changes in the market that the model couldn’t support.
Keeping the model flexible, as both Isolde and Emanuel suggest, allows for more responsiveness to changing markets, and can be particularly good if the changes are less predictable. Rather than favoring the relative stability of a single model, it can favor optimizing at the best points of the company instead of one. However, staying too flexible and responding to too much can spread the business thin, diluting the focus of the revenue. Depending on the changes made, it can also be difficult to keep an organized structure with the rest of the business, making it difficult to find stable footing to go back to.
3. Pretend that the CEO has decided the department heads must merge their divisions together. As a star PM assigned to mediate this interaction between department heads, how would you scaffold the discussion to ensure a fair merging process?
I would first start by allowing each department head to describe the strongest and weakest points of their respective divisions. This would help establish the strengths of both, while also acknowledging that each needs to improve. It would also help discussions about how the divisions can cooperate with the merge. Perhaps one division has insights and strengths that complement the other’s weaknesses. I would then have each side present their goals, focus, and market target in order to assess where there could be clashes. Similar to the situation with Siiquence and Teomik, these discussions would help both sides see where they could meet in the middle for any conflicts, as well as how they could combine their goals into a more cohesive statement for the merge.
