Which markets do Isolde and Emanuel target respectively? How do their respective business/revenue models align with their markets?
Isolde is the head of “Siiquent, a DNA- sequencing start-up” while Emanuel is the head of “Teomik, a provider of research equipment”. While both companies held patents for certain research technologies and genetic diagnoses, they fulfilled separate niches in the industry. Siiquent was catering towards a market of hospitals and diagnostic labs, selling resources for gene-based diagnoses—most of their revenue was from “biological and chemical compounds, test kits, and other consumables.” Some aspects that stood out about Siiquent were that they could provide these consumables to their customers for a smaller cost than what they would otherwise get from insurers and the national health service and that they maintained a high level of maintenance support. On the other hand, Teomik was targeting the market of research labs and universities, selling them resources for gene-based studies. They made most of their profit by selling their high-priced patent-protected devices to their customer base of large, influential genetic research institutions that were willing to pay these high prices. In contrast, Teomik did not need to provide the same level of regulatory assistance to their customers.
What are the pros and perils of “imposing the structure of a single revenue model” vs. “letting [the company] continue on its flexible way”?
While imposing the structure of a single revenue model would likely result in a more structured, organized, and clear direction for a company, it also runs the risk of not being able to accommodate to a dynamic, changing marketplace. Isolde describes this model as one which is “going to hamstring [them] when [they] need to be nimble, flexible, and ingenious to keep up with a dynamic marketplace.” The reverse is true for letting a company “continue on its flexible way”—adaptablility and creativity are maintained while running the risk of sporadic, inconsistent, and inefficient operations.
Pretend that the CEO has decided the department heads must merge their divisions together. As a star PM assigned to mediate this interaction between department heads, how would you scaffold the discussion to ensure a fair merging process?
Both divisions clearly hold shared values, which I would work to collaboratively identify and prioritize before diving into their differences. After identifying these places of agreement, we would discuss differences in business models, strategies, and priorities. Prioritization is the key here—some disagreed upon aspects can be disregarded if they are not prioritized by any of the companies. Others are worth discussing, deciding on, or compromising. I would also ensure that decisions are not made without data or supporting evidence—piloting and beta testing are crucial.
