Siiquent earns money by the blade, while Teomik earns money by the razor. Hospitals being limited by budgets and bureaucracy, Siiquent focused on earning money off competitively-priced consumables like test kits and compounds, and sold itself off their customer service. Teomik, on the other hand, appealed to researches and institutions who could afford to buy high-priced machines.
Imposing a unified front in terms of business models is often a preferred strategy for companies — it provides stability and structure for which companies can form a strategy for. Constantly shifting models can be seen as opportunistic and confusing for customers.
But trying to force a single business model in this case favors the product instead of the customer. A successful business model is based not on the product but how it fills consumer needs to the best possible fit — in this regard, we are essentially dealing with two different products, and there is no use in trying to make them one. While unifying models often provides stability, I believe Siiquent and Teomik seem to have this stability already through their competitive advantages. I don’t think either is arguing to be so fluid as to bend to every customer’s demand, but simply to allow their strategy to be multi-faceted based on established markets.
It seems like the best place to start a merger is with the things that can be easily merged, such as customer service. From there, unifying the companies starts with unifying a mission statement, and figuring out how their combined market/consumers fit that statement. The conversation continues with laying out each others strategies, ideating new ones, and seeing which aligns with the aforementioned mission best.
