Based off of the case study, it is clear that Isolde targets hospitals whereas Emmanuel targets research institutions. Each also have their own respective financial models that are based on their respective markets with Isolde not making a huge profit on equipment but focusing more on long-term adjacent products that they profit from over time. Emmanuel seems to charge more of a premium on their equipment, given that it is cutting edge technology and is being sold to institutions that are willing to invest in new technology.
The pros of unifying these models seems to be cohesively and unity across brands. Beyond the internal benefits of unifying these models – processing and financing – unifying would practically merge these two brands, creating a shared identity and practice between the two. On the other hand, allowing them to both operate under their respective models could allow them both to follow more tailored plans that make more sense to their respective markets. This would give each group more agency and would not force them into any particular box.
As a PM on this case, I would make sure that my process in deciding how to move forward was based in a lot of research. I would want to commute with all internal and external stakeholders on what these processes have previously been like for them, try to identify pain-points, and potentially common ground frustrations that are shared amongst different people. Given that we are considering a restructure, I would use this as an opportunity to try and connect the dots on how operations/financial models may be streamlined to benefit more people. From here I would let things naturally take shape being careful not to force operations under the exact same model or not – this seems quite arbitrary to me and that it could be entirely context dependent depending on market trends, talent, company culture, etc. I would just want to make sure that regardless of the decision that is made, it would encompass and address as many different groups sentiments and experiences.
