The markets that Isolde and Emanuel target seem to ebb and flow a bit, especially as patents expire and labs that were previously customers begin to develop their own processes. Isolde’s unit (Siiquent) targets hospitals and big diagnostic labs focused on gene-based diagnoses while Emanuel’s unit (Teomik) targets research labs and universities focused on gene-based studies. With regards to revenue models, Isolde’s blunt analogy was clear: Teomik accrued revenue with the machines and Siiquent got it through the stuff that the machines use. Siiquent aligned with its market by selling consumables at lower price points while Teomik could sell pricey machines to large labs. They both generated brand loyalty and customer satisfaction through their customer service verticals.
The main pro of imposing the single revenue model would be a north star and strategy to guide the business. While the flexible and agile customer-centrism is admirable, it sounds like a riskier route, especially with new competitors popping up. Attempting to address too many varying needs could be the double unit’s downfall as it spreads itself too thin. However, using a single revenue model would not only harm internal culture and create tension (especially considering the units already behave as internal competitors), but it would also prevent the company from exploring new revenue opportunities in the rapidly changing market.
If I were tasked as a PM to create a fair merging process, I would first examine the timeline that this merge would have to occur within. I think that a few weeks would be enough time to create the scaffolding for the merger, while the actual execution and refinement might take several months. Isolde and Emanuel are aligned on their vision, but the alignment really is just a desire for separation—they don’t want their units to merge. I’d first want to understand what about their revenue models they want to keep. Since both units offer customer services, I would be curious to hear individually what they are apprehensive about losing in their current form. I would also examine the moments in their history where they felt they grew to shifting needs (beyond the single pay-per-test example). Where is this flexibility they have mentioned? What team(s) might we be able to create in a combined unit to continue this innovation and thought partnership? This information would act as a foundation in discussions between Isolde and Emanuel. The next step would be mediating brainstorming and discussion in which Isolde and Emanuel pull the parts of their units that they value together. I would remind them of provisions they might need to temperature check the merger, employee sentiment, and customer satisfaction during the process. I would also have them share the goals they shared with me to explore where the overlap and conflicting parts are together.
