Isolde has a pay-per-test business model that focuses on consumer loyalty and retention. While this allows for consistency and guaranteed business from loyal customers, it works on an immoral ground of needing problems to arise within the community. In addition, it costs significant resources to continually use and test things. Emanuel has a more flexible model that focuses on dynamically altering the revenue stream as the business progresses. This flexibility accommodates for changes of needs in the market, but does not build a strong business brand and lacks consistency. If a CEO has staffed me with merging their divisions together, I would first ask both parties to outline their current business plans, in addition to researching the other parties plans to see if there is overlap in product. This will allow both parties to better understand the intentions of the other and identify ways that merging can save the company money and identify a more streamline method of processing services or products. I think more than a fair merging process, a profitable and simple process is more important. I would frame the issue in a manner that focuses on the merge as opposed to the two different parties “fighting” to be correct. In addition, I would have both parties take active role in assisting with the progress changes so that it feel like a more united front. I think my ultimate goal is to remove hostility and competition within both markets by focusing on the result and not the process. However, the issue I think that would exist is that people might feel like they’d be fired under more efficient and simplified workforces. That is something I still would like to figure out.
