Trexel Essay

456 Words2 Pages
c) Analyze and summarize Trexel/Bernstein’s business models prior to the next board meeting David Bernstein’s business models for Trexel started as long term development and shifted to fast track. As we’ll see, these were unsuccessful because relying on partner development and turnkey technology didn't give Trexel enough control and ability to follow through with projects. The initial goal Bernstein laid out should have been the primary focus all along - to make Trexel a self sustaining company with control over every step of the process for a particular market. Not to say the previous plans were utter failures. A lot was learned about the technology and the feasibility of market inception. Money was made, but nowhere near the earning potential. When Trexel was first emerging into the market, Bernstein envisioned MuCell going from lab to production. This required Trexel to recruit skilled engineers and management team, and changing the current business model. This is when the long term development plan or three pronged business strategy was enacted. It focused on continuing in large scale development partnerships and using their money to learn more about the technology, then developing in-house created products for production and licensing them out (turnkey manner). It was high risk, with high reward potential and many big companies were eager to throw money at Trexel. This approach failed because Trexel bit off more than it could chew. They picked up too many products without understanding the full limitations of MuCell and lost a lot of customers. Fortunately, they didn't lose much money in learning this lesson. As a result, Bernstein was pressed to get the product to the market, fast. He believed that if giving the partners more ownership, then they'd be more inclined to follow through. This was known as the Fast Track Development plan. It had three

More about Trexel Essay

Open Document