Table of Contents
TomoTherapy Inc............................................................................................................................ 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Company History ........................................................................................................................ 1
Key Personnel ............................................................................................................................. 2
Competitive Landscape ............................................................................................................... 2
Market Competition ................................................................................................................ 2
Varian Medical Systems ......................................................................................................... 3
Siemens Medical Solutions ..................................................................................................... 3
Elektra ..................................................................................................................................... 3
GE Medical ............................................................................................................................. 3
Forging Ahead ............................................................................................................................ 4
Chart 1: Employees .................................................................................................................... 5
Chart 2: Units Sold per Year ...................................................................................................... 5
Chart 3: Yearly Sales and Revenues .......................................................................................... 5
Case Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model........................................................................................... 6
Substitutes ............................................................................................................................... 6
Buyer Power............................................................................................................................ 6
Supplier Power ........................................................................................................................ 6
Barriers to Entry/Threat of New Entrants ............................................................................... 7
Rivalry..................................................................................................................................... 7
Single Product Emphasis ............................................................................................................ 8
Pros ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Cons ........................................................................................................................................ 8
TomoTherapy and Single Product Risk Management ............................................................ 8
Sell the Company? ...................................................................................................................... 9
IPO .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Chart 4: TomoTherapy’s Product Life Cycle Curve................................................................. 10
Appendix A: How the TomoTherapy System Works1 ................................................................. 11
Appendix B: Financial Information .............................................................................................. 12
Chart 5: Venture Capital .......................................................................................................... 12
References ..................................................................................................................................... 13
TomoTherapy Press Releases ................................................................................................... 13
Web Sites .................................................................................................................................. 13
Newsletters ................................................................................................................................ 13
Newspaper Articles ................................................................................................................... 13
Magazine Articles ..................................................................................................................... 14
0
TomoTherapy Inc.
Fred Robertson sat back in his chair and sighed. As the new CEO of the medical device company
TomoTherapy, he was facing his toughest decision yet. The company was growing by leaps and
bounds, and the profit potential was phenomenal; however, he lacked a clear marketing plan.
When he joined the young company, Robertson understood it lacked a steady income stream and
clear marketing strategy. While profits and demand had grown, unfortunately, the marketing
program had not. In fact, the company did not have a marketing department until 2004. One of
the key ways the firm had succeeded was by riding the marketing efforts of Varian, its key
competitor and the market leader in cancer treatment devices.
Another problem for the company was that it sourced one of the main components for its
machine from one of its major competitors—Siemens Medical Solutions. Robertson knew he had
to work to eliminate the single sourcing of such a key component to his company’s product.
He considered the marketing and sourcing problems carefully as he watched the sunset from his
Madison-Wisconsin based office and manufacturing facility.
Background
Company History
TomoTherapy is a medical device company that grew out of cancer research conducted at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1990. It was at this time that the UW began conceptual
research and development of helical tomotherapy as a cancer treatment. See appendix A for
details on how the TomoTherapy system works.
After a series of successful R&D endeavors, UW-Madison formed the Tomotherapy Research
Group in 1994. Then in 1997, Paul J. Reckwerdt and professor Thomas Rockwell Mackie
founded privately held TomoTherapy Inc.
Mackie and Reckwerdt founded their company with the goal of proliferating their intensitymodulated radiotherapy cancer treatment system. They started out in a 15,000-square-foot
facility in a Middleton, Wisconsin business park. The prototype system was located at UWMadison, where testing of the system at the UW involved dogs with cancer and “phantoms,” or
models that represented targets.
Then in 2000, UW-Madison’s Medical School received a $7.5 million federal grant to develop
protocols for most types of cancer with TomoTherapy’s new system for cancer treatment;
however it could not sell the system in the U.S. because it had not yet been approved by the
FDA. Finally, in February 2002, the Hi-Art system received FDA 501(k) clearance, and
TomoTherapy installed its first system later that year.
The first sales were to six major cancer centers in the U.S. and two in Canada. The Canadian
units were the first to be built, and were completed before the company moved to its new 70,0001
square-foot headquarters in mid-2002. The new facility boosted manufacturing capacity to 10
Hi-Art systems per month.
In December 2003, TomoTherapy received FDA clearance to begin U.S. sales and distribution of
a newly developed Hi-Art 2.0 version of the TomoTherapy system. The new system included
features such as speed, ease-of-use, and patient comfort enhancements. Shortly after the release
of the new machine, the TomoTherapy also received FDA approval of a new image-guided
adaptive dosage system, which the company then incorporated into the Hi-Art in December
2004.
After several successful innovations and FDA approvals, TomoTherapy was ready to focus on
increasing its staff and capacity. In 2005 TomoTherapy had again doubled its staff to include
over 300 employees worldwide (chart 1), effectively doubling its ranks for four consecutive
years in a row. This growth was a direct result of constantly improved sales (chart 2), which
totaled 44 installations as of September 29, 2005 (chart 3). The company currently has an
additional 36 systems in the sales process and plans to double its manufacturing capacity by mid
2006. See appendix B for additional financial information.
Key Personnel
Thomas Mackie, Ph.D. co-founder and Chairman of the Board
Mackie is a co-founder and chairman of the Board of Directors for TomoTherapy. He is a
leading researcher in radiation therapy. Mackie was one of the primary inventors of the Hi-Art
system, as he designed the algorithm of the TomoTherapy concept. He is a full professor at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School, where he established the Tomotherapy
Research Group. TomoTherapy’s products, along with the radiation therapy products of another
of Mackie’s start-up companies—Geometrics Corporation, have been successful business spinoffs of the research derived from the Tomotherapy Research Group.
Paul Reckwerdt, co-founder and President
Reckwerdt worked closely with Mackie to found both Geometrics Corporation and
TomoTherapy. He has worked for two decades as a software developer, both in private industry
and for UW-Madison, focusing on the development of software innovations that drive advanced
medical research products like the Hi-Art.
Fred Robertson, M.D., CEO
Robertson became CEO of TomoTherapy in early 2005. He holds a medical degree from UWMadison and earned a MBA from San Diego State University. He came to TomoTherapy from
Marquette Medical Systems, where he worked for seven years in positions such as President and
Chief Executive Officer. He joined TomoTherapy in 2000, soon after GE took over Marquette
Medical Systems.
Competitive Landscape
Market Competition
TomoTherapy must consider two key issues when competing in the increasingly crowded
medical device market. First, the installed base of cancer-treatment machines is dominated by
2
Varian Medical Systems. TomoTherapy must fight an up-hill battle to overtake the market
leader. Second, the company has some key vulnerabilities in its supply chain. Several of
TomoTherapy’s components are actually single sourced from the company’s major competitors.
This creates an opportunity for disruptions in supply to significantly impact the company’s
revenue stream.
Additionally, the market is becoming increasingly crowded as competitors emerge and try to
capitalize on the new innovation. Whether the company is able to reap first-mover advantages
will hinge on how well it uses its core competencies and markets its innovation, but
TomoTherapy is weak in its marketing strategy and will need to strengthen its plan if it wants to
maximize its innovation before competitors bring similar solutions to the market. The following
is a list of TomoTherapy’s major competitors.
Varian Medical Systems
Varian Medical Systems is by far TomoTherapy’s greatest market threat. At over $1 billion in
sales, this Palo-Alto company is the current market leader for the traditional linear accelerator
cancer treatment device. It holds a 60% market share of the existing cancer-treatment machines,
and has created the buyer-seller relationships necessary to help it begin selling a competitive
product as soon as it develops one.
Varian’s decision to enter the market and compete head to head with the TomoTherapy comes as
no surprise; however, it will certainly mean a battle for market share to replace the existing
cancer treatment machines. Its clear market lead means TomoTherapy will have to quickly
leverage its first-mover advantage and existing patents.
Siemens Medical Solutions
Siemens Medical Solutions is a major producer of medical imaging equipment. Headquartered in
Malvern, Pennsylvania and Erlangen, Germany, the company is one of the largest suppliers to
the healthcare industry worldwide. The company specializes in producing diagnostic imaging
systems and is, therefore, a natural competitor because it manufactures many of the components
needed to create a device like the Hi-Art.
Because TomoTherapy’s Hi-Art combines imaging with a treatment device, Siemens is a threat
to TomoTherapy. The company also serves an existing market of over 5,000 healthcare
organizations and 1,000 healthcare providers and has annual revenues of over $8.5 billion.
Elektra
Elektra is a Swedish-based company with over $350 million in annual revenue. The company
recently introduced its own medical device called the Synergy, which competes head-to-head
with TomoTherapy’s Hi-Art device. Despite TomoTherapy’s patented technology, Elektra
introduced the Synergy and sells the technology at exactly the same price point as
TomoTherapy—$3.2 million.
GE Medical
GE Medical is a unique competitor for TomoTherapy because GE was one of the original
financial backers of TomoTherapy. GE provided about $750,000 annually to Mackie and
3
Reckwerdt until 1997, when GE decided the innovation would not yield the necessary market
returns.
While GE Medical does not currently compete directly with TomoTherapy, it would certainly
not be difficult for the company to begin to do so. The prior relationship between Mackie,
Reckwerdt and GE Medical has given the company an understanding of the innovations the team
created. GE could easily find a way to imitate the innovations. GE Medical’s deep pockets and
strong preexisting networks would make it a strong candidate when it came to marketing and
commercializing the innovation.
Forging Ahead
Fred Robertson knows he faces tough, critical decisions in the near future. He recognizes the
company’s weaknesses in sourcing and marketing are a threat to future profitability. However,
he is distracted by TomoTherapy’s explosive growth.
Another problem Robertson monitors closely is what he calls the “lumpiness” of the company’s
profitability due to the relatively low production capacity and high value of each Hi-Art system.
Because the machines are so capital intensive, each sale has a large impact on TomoTherapy’s
bottom line. Robertson hopes that increasing capacity in 2006 will help alleviate this problem
and assure TomoTherapy’s future.
Thirdly, TomoTherapy had yet to earn a profit. Projections show a healthy profit of $10 million
for 2006. However, as of the end of 2005, much attention was being paid to the last few sales of
the year. It was the hope of the CEO that those sales would be completed December, rather than
January. If this happened, TomoTherapy would break even for the first time.
4
Chart 1: Employees
350
300
250
200
# Employees
150
100
50
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Chart 2: Units Sold per Year
60
50
40
30
Units Installed
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006*
Chart 3: Yearly Sales and Revenues
140
120
$1,000,000
100
80
Sales
Revenues
60
40
20
0
-20
2004
2005
2006*
*Projections as of the end of 2005.
5
Case Analysis
Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model
The case of TomoTherapy can be analyzed with Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model. Using this
model, we can analyze the competitive forces currently affecting TomoTherapy and predict how
those forces will affect the company’s future.
Porter argued that Threat of Substitutes, Buyer Power, Supplier Power, and Barriers to
Entry/Threat of Entry all contribute to create Rivalry and affect a firm’s ability to successfully
compete in the marketplace. Analyzing each of these forces provides insight into
TomoTherapy’s future profitability.
Substitutes
Beyond other linear accelerator cancer treatment systems, the main substitute threat to
TomoTherapy is proton therapy. Proton therapy utilizes a cyclotron to accelerate protons to very
high speeds. Due to proton beam complexity, the patient is moved across the beam path, instead
of the beam path being passed across the patient, as with the TomoTherapy system. Fortunately
these systems currently cost in excess of 100 Million dollars. It will likely be many years before
this alternative system can compete directly with more traditional linear accelerator systems such
as TomoTherapy’s Hi-Art system.
Buyer Power
In general, buyers can exercise power if there are several suppliers or if the buyers can easily
purchase substitutes. If the buyers are concentrated—there are only a few buyers with significant
market share—or the buyers purchase a significant proportion of output, then they have power in
the relationship.
TomoTherapy is working to reduce the power of its buyers by increasing its output so that each
purchase does not represent such a large proportion of its overall revenue. Currently, there are
NOT several suppliers, and TomoTherapy has a temporary monopoly on the technology due to
its innovative nature and the patents it holds. TomoTherapy estimates there are 7,500 cancer
treatment devices in the U.S., and, therefore, a large potential U.S. market. Combined with the
international sales potential for the Hi-Art device, the concentration of buyers is not high.
Supplier Power
Suppliers gain power in a number of ways. If the supplier is a single source for a firm’s key
components, then it puts the supplier in a powerful position. Additionally, suppliers will be
powerful if they are concentrated, if the end users have significant power, or if it is particularly
costly for a firm to switch suppliers. Another source of supplier power occurs when there is a
credible threat of forward integration by suppliers.
In TomoTherapy’s case, Siemens is a key supplier of components used to produce the Hi-Art,
and this has made Siemens a powerful supplier and threat. Recognizing this, Robertson is
actively seeking additional suppliers for key components, but until he finds a suitable second
source, this represents a key weakness in TomoTherapy’s business model.
6
Barriers to Entry/Threat of New Entrants
Not only do the incumbent firms pose a threat to a firm’s viability, but the possibility that new
firms could form and compete in an existing market also contributes to competition. Firms,
however, possess characteristics that can prevent entry and competition and protect high profit
levels.
One of the barriers to entry in the medical device industry is the capital-intensive nature of the
industry. Because it is so costly to research and produce the machines, it is difficult for
businesses to compete in this field. Another protection against competition is TomoTherapy’s
government protection, which comes in the form of patents.
TomoTherapy has over 100 patents on its technology, software, and product design, and this
protects it from a perfectly competitive landscape, allowing the firm to reap the benefits of its
long-term R&D efforts.
Another barrier TomoTherapy benefits from is the government-created barrier that specifies the
FDA must approve all medical devices in order for them to be marketed and sold within the U.S.
The process is both expensive and time consuming and represents another barrier to entry by
competing firms.
However, the incumbents in the cancer-treatment field are very strong and have deep pockets.
According to Robertson, one of the key threats facing TomoTherapy is Swedish-based Elektra,
which has successfully released its own version of a tomography cancer-treatment device and
sells it at the same price as the Hi-Art system.
If Elektra was determined to try to eliminate TomoTherapy from the competitive landscape, it
could engage in a price war to try to prevent the company from becoming profitable. However,
the price war would cost Elektra in profits, and it would still need FDA approval to enter the
U.S. market.
Rivalry
The above four forces combine to create Porter’s fifth force—Rivalry. The intensity of industry
rivalry depends on the extent to which the first four forces are impact a firm and its competitors.
Exit barriers, industry concentration, industry growth, switching costs, diversity of rivals, and
intermittent overcapacity all contribute to the degree of rivalry in a given industry.
In TomoTherapy’s industry, rivalry tends to be high because of the significant R&D costs to
develop new solutions and then market and distribute them successfully. Profit margins tend to
be high in this industry, so the competition is fierce. Exit barriers are very high in this industry
because the decision to stop producing a machine that required such specific R&D investments
causes significant capital loss to the company.
Based on our analysis of Porter’s Five Forces Model, we predict that TomoTherapy will face
significant competition, especially from Elektra and Varian. Because Varian currently has the
majority market share in cancer-treatment devices, the company will work very hard to maintain
7
that advantage. Elektra, however, will fight to break into the industry with its own device, and is
likely to use price competition to lure buyers away from TomoTherapy.
TomoTherapy will have to leverage its patents and early FDA approval to gain market share.
Then the firm must use that early advantage to protect and grow its position.
Single Product Emphasis
Maintaining focus on a single product allows all of a company’s resources to be focused on that
product. However, there are pros and cons associated with this approach.
Pros
The advantage of a single product approach is that all of a company’s resources are focused in
one place. Financial reasons alone are sufficient to require a single product approach for many
new business startups. However, these companies take on a number of risks. Having a diversified
portfolio of products serves to reduce these risks, and can help ensure a company’s survival in
the long term.
For a high-tech company vying to outperform the competition, the one-product approach is fairly
common, particularly when first starting out. By moving significantly ahead of the competition, a
company can gain an advantage over the competition for a period of time.
TomoTherapy is singularly focused on their Hi-Art cancer treatment system. This allows all of
their resources to be focused, assumably helping that product grow in demand, and sales, to the
maximum possible extent.
Patents and trade secrets can limit competition by discourage new entrants from entering the
market and existing competitors from duplicating key technological advances. TomoTherapy is
utilizing this approach, with over 100 patents involved with the Hi-Art system. These tools can
help a company sustain its advantage.
Cons
There is significant risk with a single product approach. A single product approach forces a
company to endure 100% of the market risk. The company must endure all of the ups and downs
of a single market. Just like with buying stocks, having multiple products reduces the market risk
of the company. The accompanying 5-forces analysis discusses other single product risk factors.
Obsolescence can also happen. This diminishes sales in a market category simply because the
technology becomes outmoded, or market needs change significantly. TomoTherapy, and their
competition, face a potential future threat from proton therapy. Proton therapy is a competing,
but currently much more expensive, cancer treatment technology.
TomoTherapy and Single Product Risk Management
TomoTherapy appears to have reached the early part of the growth section of the product life
cycle. (Chart 4) Companies in this part of the product life cycle are normally highly in debt,
having earned limited revenue to this point. Additionally, the capitol demands of massive
growth can be difficult to manage. During periods of massive growth, costs can easily increase
8
in advance of revenues. A major challenge for TomoTherapy’s leadership is to keep costs to a
similar growth rate to revenues.
TomoTherapy is following a single product approach, likely to advance their product line
technologically. This also allows their limited capitol and resources to be fully focused on their
one product. They are using the tried and true “better product at a lower overall cost” to attract
customers, and market share. However, in the long term, to help manage risk, it is likely that they
will seek to diversify their product portfolio.
The need for diversification is where acquisition enters the arena. Either TomoTherapy could
acquire other companies to diversify, or could be acquired by another organization with a
complimentary product portfolio.
Recently, TomoTherapy considered the acquisition of a complimentary technology in the form
of another company. This company’s products involve holding a patient steady during
treatment. This would allow higher treatment levels per treatment, and thus fewer treatments per
patient.
TomoTherapy decided to pass on the acquisition, allowing the company to fall into the portfolio
of Varian, their much larger competitor. It is likely that once TomoTherapy becomes sufficiently
profitable that they will actively seek the acquisition of companies with complimentary products.
Sell the Company?
IPO
An IPO at this time would be recommended as the company is still relatively new and while it is
on the verge of profitability, it does not have a proven track record of returns to support the
offering of stock. There may have been a time in the late 90s when a technology company could
launch a successful IPO on the promise of impending profitability but we do not believe that the
environment is supportive for that to occur today. While it is not know for sure what the
investment time horizon is of the current investors in TomoTherapy, it would seem logical that
they realize that the company has to become profitable for them to recapture their initial
investment plus a satisfactory return.
In their CEO’s own words, their profits are “a bit too lumpy”, or inconsistent, to consider any
sort of cashing out for the venture capitalists. We do not believe that they will force
TomoTherapy into an IPO at this point nor should they as the return to investment could be
much better in a couple years assuming continued strong growth in the demand for, and sales of,
the Hi-Art system. Indeed there are rumors of an IPO in a year or so.4
Another factor to consider in deciding to do an IPO or outright sale of the company is what stage
the product is at in its lifecycle. The TomoTherapy’s Hi-Art system is still in the early stages of
the Foster’s S-curve between the embryonic and growth periods and has yet to reach the point
where adoption is growing exponentially (See Chart 4). It is estimated that they are just
beginning to enter the growth stage of the S-curve with respect to the adoption of the technology
as hospitals are just beginning to install the technology and train technicians on how to operate
9
the system. Oncologists are just now beginning to gain access to the systems at regional medical
centers and usage is still limited. It would make more sense for investors to wait until the
technology is nearing the end of the growth stage to sell in the hopes of maximizing their
potential payoff.
Chart 4: TomoTherapy’s Product Life Cycle Curve
Performance parameter
Physical Limit
Maturity
NEW
INVENTION
PERIOD
Aging
MATURE
TECHNOLOGY
PERIOD
TECHNOLOGY
IMPROVEMENT
PERIOD
Growth
Embryonic
*
TomoTherapy’s Current Position
Time (Effort)
10
Appendix A: How the TomoTherapy System Works1
The process for cancer patients selected for treatment by the TomoTherapy Hi-Art helical
TomoTherapy system begins with the patient's CT images being loaded into the TomoTherapy
system.
The patient's doctor then uses a computer cursor to outline the targeted tumor(s) as well as
normal structures. Next, the doctor will prescribe how much radiation should be delivered to the
target tumor(s) and what limits there should be on radiation hitting other areas, especially
sensitive structures such as the spine, heart, and lungs. For ill-defined tumors, the doctor can
merely describe areas to be avoided and allow the radiation to hit everything else in a region of
the body.
The doctor can also set levels of “importance” for his prescription commands. For example, the
doctor can designate that it's more important for very little radiation to hit the spine than for the
maximum amount to hit the tumor(s).
A physicist will then use the TomoTherapy system to create a treatment plan for approval or
modification by the doctor. The treatment plan then will be forwarded to the therapist who will
perform the treatment on the patient.
When the patient comes in for the treatment, a new CT scan will be taken using the
TomoTherapy system. That scan will be compared to the previous, scans and the therapist will
adjust the patient's position accordingly. Adjustments may be necessary due to factors such as
growth or shifting of the tumor.
For the treatment, the patient will lie on the system's movable flat “couch” and will be instructed
not to move during the procedure. Restraints, such as Velcro straps, are typically used to help
keep the patient stationary.
The system will automatically move the patient through the
machine as the radiation is administered. The radiation delivery
portion of the system rotates 360 degrees around the patient, a
unique TomoTherapy system feature that enables the precise
radiation targeting.
A “multi-leaf collimator” shapes the radiation beam, cutting it
into tiny “beamlets” that hit specific areas at specific strengths.
This is how TomoTherapy gets its name. It actually means “slice
therapy.”
11
Appendix B: Financial Information
TomoTherapy gathered capital primarily via five rounds of venture capital financing. The
earliest was in 1998, and the last was finalized in late 2005. (See chart 5 below.) Some of the
highlights of the company’s search for capital are as follows:
1998-1999: Some of the initial capital came from the sale of Geometrics, another company
founded by TomoTherapy’s co-founders. The founders decided early on to seek venture capitol
primarily from the upper Midwest, where the company is located.
2000-2001: The company built two new machines for installation in two facilities in Canada. A
second round of venture capital financing totaling $8 million dollars financed this. Later in 2001
the company began seeking its third round of financing.
2002-2003: The company completed its third round of financing, which provided the funding to
build a 70,000 square foot, three story, company headquarters in Madison, WI. By the end of
May 2002, the company had spent approximately $30 million since its inception in 1998. 2
2004: TomoTherapy announced a fourth round of venture capitol financing in February 2004,
gaining an additional $7 million. The total investment at that time was just under $30 Million.3
Many of the earlier investors also participated in this round of financing, helping to maintain
their previous shares in the business.
2005: A $20 million net round of venture capitol financing is completed, primarily from the
investors who previously contributed capital. The company breaks ground on a new production
facility in late 2005, which will double production capacity by late 2006.
Chart 5: Venture Capital
60
50
50
$M
40
30
30
22
20
Round
Total
20
11.6
10
8
10
3.6 3.6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
Round
12
References
TomoTherapy Press Releases
TomoTherapy Gains 510(k) Clearance for Hi-Art System. February 6, 2002
TomoTherapy Incorporated Earns Key Regulatory Certification. April 24, 2003
The Revolution Continues: New Adaptive Dose Targeting Takes Hi-Art to the Next level.
December 24, 2004
Web Sites
Siemens Medical Solutions
http://www.trados.com/library/documents/SDL-Astoria-Siemens_Medical_Solutions_caseStudy26July2005.pdf
TomoTherapy Inc. Mission and History. http://www.tomotherapy.com/company/company.htm
TomoTherapy Officers and Directors:
http://www.tomotherapy.com/company/officers.htm
Newsletters
Robertson, Fred. Expanding Innovation. ‘OnTarget’, Quarterly newsletter from TomoTherapy
Inc. October 2005.
Newspaper Articles
1
How Tomotherapy System Works The Capital Times, Thursday, May 30, 2002, Jeff Richgels
2
Cancer Fighter Tomotherapy Aims To Revolutionize treatment, The Capital Times, Thursday,
May 30, 2002, Jeff Richgels
3
Tomotherapy Gets Big Boost, The Capital Times, Wednesday, February 25, 2004, Jeff Richgels
4
Radiating Success, Wisconsin State Journal, Sunday, November 20, 2005, Judy Newman
New Grants To Firms Here Will Advance Technologies, The Capital Times, Friday, July 4, 2003,
Jeff Richgels
Accent On Medical Devices Biotech, Health-related Companies Seeking Money, Wisconsin State
Journal, October 14, 2001, Judy Newman
Tomotherapy Machine May Improve Process Researchers Led By Uw Professor Thomas Mackie
Developed The New Cancer Treatment Technology, Wisconsin State Journal, January 25, 2001,
Judy Newman Business
Tomotherapy Has New Leader, Big Plans, Capital Times, December 6, 2000, Mike Ivey
13
Venture Fund Gets $30 Million It'll Be Early Stage Capital For Tech Outfits, Wisconsin State
Journal, June 25, 2000, Judy Newman
Investment Board May Back New Biotechs $50 Million Could Be Invested In Wisconsin
Enterprises, Wisconsin State Journal, March 3, 1999, Judy Newman
Abs Division Trumpets Latest Biotech Advance, Capital Times, January 28, 1999
Magazine Articles
Martin, Justin; “Finding Gold in GE’s Garbage;” Fortune Small Business; New York; April
2004; Volume 14, Issue 3 pg. 54.
14
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Graduate School of Business
MGT 250 – 738
Management of Technology
Prof. William L. Dougan
December 20, 2004
Group Project
‘TomoTherapy Inc.’
Patrick Becker
Sarah Hoke
Brad Katz
15