Isode, the head of Siiquent, targets hospitals and diagnostic labs and seek profit through the classic razor-blade model due to the fact that the procedures and equipments for gene-based diagnosis technology appear to be too costly for even the biggest hospitals and diagnostic labs. Rather, they turn to biological and chemical compounds, test kits and other consumables. On the other hand, Emanuel, the head of Teomik, focuses on research-intensive institutions by providing biological research equipments and materials to support their genomics studies. Benefited from their exclusive patent and willingness of big funders of genetic research to pay for their machines in return for “glory in prestigious scientific journals”. One thing their business/revenue models share in common is their extensive free service that comes with their main products, which satisfies the need of their respective customers/market accordingly.
Letting the company continue on its flexible way would allow for constant shifting to new strategies and tactics in response to market changes, customer needs, and competitor. However, it may come at the cost of random reactivity due to lack of structure, which introduce great uncertainty for both investors and customers. It may also cause internal problems within the company since there seem to be no consistent values/goals held by the company. It can also discourage its employees from active digging into their market and customers since they would just go with the changes when they arises. This is also the pro of imposing the structure of a single revenue model. While it can be challenging for a rather fixed revenue model to respond to constant shifts, it can encourage strategic positioning of the company and target at its established market and customers more specifically.
As a PM assigned to mediate this interaction between department heads, I would approach both department heads individually and try to initiate conversations both on the business level and the personal level. That way, it might be easier for me understand their core values and priorities. I would seek to find answers about their own expectations during the merging process (as well as employees in their respective departments), what challenges do they foresee and what potential solutions they have in mind to resolve them. After understanding of each, I would bring them together to unite them together through commonality and discuss potential conflicting beliefs openly.
