Isolde represents Siiquent, which sells consumables for genetic research (worded as the “stuff for the machines”). Their product is sold for less than the fixed reimbursements that hospitals get from insurers and the national health service (Bertini and Tavassoli 2015) and therefore they are a more affordable option for hospitals. They also additionally provide maintenance support and assistance that is very popular amongst their customers. Since they are working closely with customers who are directly using their products, it works well for them to provide these direct services and respond to their direct user needs (e.g. selling by number of tests performed). On the other hand, Emmanuel represents Teomik, who sells the “machines.” This company’s research technology has more competitors, but is still able to generate substantial revenue as their target market are big funders of genetic research who are seeking patent-protected devices that Teomik is able to provide (Bertini and Tavassoli 2015).
I feel that this situation is adjacent to a grading rubric. When there are very clear quantitative requirements outlined, it is easier for students to understand their expectations. However, this limits room for subjectivity and creativity which are still valued in the space, even if it may be less conventional. This then places constraints on students who have more creative lenses or are wanting to try something new. “Imposing the structure of a single revenue model” provides more structure and clarity. It was already apparent that the customers were already confused by the differing offers between the two companies and how this is affected by their merging. This can be dangerous to the buyers’ level of commitment. Furthermore, there is also a risk in the company’s internal members being confused. Clarity is important for others who are less involved in the conversation to understand the direction of the company’s finances. The ambiguity that is removed by this revenue model is not necessarily achievable if implementing the “letting [the company] continue on its flexible way. Flexibility is important in being fluid to user needs and external factors that impact the industry, which the rigidness of the first revenue may not allow for as easily.
A potential scaffold for a merging discussion is outlined below.
- Transparently communicate the CEO’s instruction to merge. Set a goal as to when the decision should be made (dependent on the urgency/CEO’s deadline)
- Lay out potential directions I see at this time (merging products, choose one product or the other, choosing an entirely new product/service)
- Leave room for discussion
- Bring in relevant factors
- Optimizing revenue and considering competitors
- Catering to user needs
- If there are varying opinions and time allows, instruct everyone to research their perspective/consider limitations and present it in the next meeting (this meeting must be promptly before the decision deadline).
