Trexel Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

TREXEL

When David Bernstein (CEO of Trexel) changed the strategy of Trexel from long-term development contracts to more streamlined fast track development program; it showed no improvements in results as it was evident that the company had to focus on a specific application or applications to pursue rather than  targeting  the entire market  relating to plastic. Bernstein had to choose the specific market from 5 options, which the company should enter and operate in where its innovative technology will thrive and will achieve the maximum result.

The selection criteria that Bernstein had set in order to select a project are based on these three questions.

Is this the material and application that we understand and can transfer with little effort?

Is the customer capable of working independently at his facility when the time comes?

Does the customer have a target product that represents an interesting market opportunity?

If the answer to all the questions is ‘yes’ then the project will be accepted.

MODEL STRUCTURE FOAM

The Trexel engineers accept that they will have the capacity to deliver economically reasonable items in the structural foam molding arena as the specialized adjustments were indistinguishable to what they had been while work was being done on them. This answers the first question with a yes.

The second question will get a no as the customer will be dependent upon original equipment manufacturers (OME’s) as they are the ones who are developing the equipment implementing the MuCell technology. At any point, in the future if OME becomes insolvent or refuses to sell the products to the customer due to any reason; it can create great complications for them.

INJECTION MOLDING

This segment seems to be a very attractive for Trexel as in the injection molding the difficulties for the control of the MuCell nucleation are made easier by the use of physical molds. This replies the first question with yes.

The second question is also a yes since the formation of the plastic was done directly in the mold, which made the mini-explosion very easy to control by making it an easy repetitive process. Once complete implementation has been done then the customer will not require further assistance.

The customer will be makers of all the items under the hood of the car, which makes it a very distinguished market that will promote the MuCell technology as a brand making the third question a yes. Injection modeling is a viable option for Trexel.

BLOW MOLDING

The answer of the first question is a yes as again the use of the molds makes the rapid cell nucleation process easier to control for Trexel engineers. Similar to injection molding, it is a repetitive and simple process that means after complete implementation the customer will not require further assistance that answers the second answer with a yes. Thirdly, Blow molding is used for making plastic containers for shampoos, motor oil, milk etc. but milk being the biggest market to capture for Trexel is a very interesting market opportunity that replies the third question with a yes. This means that Blow molding .........................................

This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.

Describes an interesting technology plastics and entrepreneurs trying to build a business around it. Key issues related to technical and market risk. Education goals. The main difficult decisions to build a business off of unproven technology platform "Hide
by Michael J. Roberts, Matthew C. Lieb Source: Harvard Business School 23 pages. Publication Date: April 28, 1999. Prod. #: 899101-PDF-ENG

Share This

SALE SALE

Save Up To

30%

IN ONLINE CASE STUDY

FOR FREE CASES AND PROJECTS INCLUDING EXCITING DEALS PLEASE REGISTER YOURSELF !!

Register now and save up to 30%.