Isolde targets hospitals and labs, which is a very cost-sensitive market that relies heavily on reimbursements from insurers. Her consumable based model fits well because it creates a steady revenue stream. Emanuel, on the other hand, targets universities and research institutes, which are less worried about price (to an extent), and more focused on prestige and high-quality tools. His expensive machine model fits because these institutions will pay big money for the best equipment.
The pros of imposing the structure of a single revenue model are that it creates consistency and clarity for costumers and employees and it’s easier to measure success (you know what you’re doing is working or not, rather than not sure of which model is ineffective), however the cons are that one model may not fit both markets and you may lose a portion of one group of costumers. On the other hand, if you were to let the company continue in it’s own flexible way, the pros of that are that it allows the company to adapt better to costumer needs and you can serve different markets more effectively; however, the cons of that approach are that it creates confusion and inconsistency and it would take more time and energy to manage the company if you have to have separate teams for the two markets.
Now, if I were assigned to guide this process as a PM, I wouldn’t necessarily pick a side, but rather set up a fair process in deciding what route to take. First, I would make sure we all agree on shared goals — define what success looks like. Then, I would lay out the differences clearly. Next, I would brainstorm options together with the other leaders. Then together, we would decide how to judge these options, i.e. pick criteria such as profitability. Then, we could perhaps test different models at a small scale, and lastly make our decision based on evidence rather than opinions.
