Point number five. Separation does not mean that the conflicts have gone away. The innovation is still growing cannibalize the core business. Or it may dilute the brand or undermine the core business in some way. And even if you generate a new unit, these conflicts don't go fully away. So you should be thinking, How can I actively manage the animosity between the new unit and the core business?

How can you do this? Again, there are many different options available. strong support from the top is one alternative. Another alternative is the right incentives. But the one that I actually like, I think the one is important is when you design a strategy for the unit, don't ignore the conflicts actually recognize them and design a strategy that minimizes them. Let's have a look at the case of Medtronic.

Medtronic develops high end value added pacemakers that sell to doctors and patients, and they wanted to address the lower end of the market create a low, low priced value pacemaker. They also thought it was sensible to sell it to a different business model. So they came up with a different unit separated for my tronic. And they call it Nyah med. They put it in Switzerland, and they gave it a task to sell the low end pacemakers. And this created the big conflict.

Why? Well, the business model of Nyoman was online and in a way bypassed all of the salespeople of Medtronic, creating a conflict of distribution. All the distributors from Medtronic are the salespeople. They hated his business model because they were left out and they were likely to undermine it. The question then becomes Can you think of a strategy for Nyam at that time that minimizes this conflict? Well, here's some suggestions.

You could, for example, so to Nomad, you target geographic regions where metonic does not have a large market share where there aren't Many salespeople, you could talk to smaller rural hospitals where the salespeople don't currently don't go. These are steps and actions that you can take to minimize the distribution conflicts.