DISCUSSION FORUM

The End of the National TechnicalInformation Service?

J. Timothy Sprehe

On August 12, 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that SecretaryWilliam Daley would send to Congress legislation to close down the National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS). According to the departmental press release:

After extensive review and analysis it was determined that the core function of NTIS, providinggovernment information for a fee, is no longer needed in this day of advanced electronictechnology. Established in 1950, NTIS’ core business—the sale of government documents inmicrofiche and on paper—is rapidly becoming less of the necessity it was as agencies andgroups have begun to post their reports on the Internet for free.1

In testimony before the House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Technology,Deputy Secretary of Commerce Robert Mallett stated, on September 14, 1999, the case forclosing NTIS;

NTIS was created in 1950 to operate as a clearinghouse within the U.S. Government for thecollection and dissemination of technical, scientific, and engineering information of all kinds.However, the rapid growth of the Internet has fundamentally changed the way NTIS’ customersacquire and use information. As the Department’s Inspector General noted in March 1999,“Federal agencies are increasingly bypassing NTIS as a distribution channel, instead offeringtheir publications directly to the public over the Internet.”

*Direct all correspondence to: J. Timothy Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates, Inc., 4201Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 610, Washington, D.C. 20008,jtsprehe@tidalwave.net..

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 1, pages 1–6.Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

It is not surprising then that—largely because of these changes in the marketplace—sales ofpublications from the traditional NTIS clearinghouse declined from almost 2.3 million units inFiscal Year 1993 to 1.3 million units in Fiscal Year 1998. As a result, in the past two years,NTIS has lost millions of dollars, using nearly all of its retained earnings to stay afloat.2

Mallett described recent efforts to keep NTIS viable by aggressively downsizing itsworkforce, resulting in the transfer of 46 staff members to other parts of the department,reducing office and warehouse space, and other cost cutting measures. He noted that NTIShad expanded its mission scope in recent years, venturing into business opportunities “onthe perimeter of its statutory mission” and possibly competing against private sectorbusinesses. In sum, the Commerce Department had decided to close down NTIS becauseits business model had become fatally flawed and the agency was a financial liability tothe department.

As anyone who has followed NTIS is well aware, NTIS in recent years had transformeditself into a kind of general purpose service bureau for all agencies, willing to performvirtually any information service for which agencies and/or the public would pay. Todaythe NTIS repository contains almost three million technical reports, databases, and otherpublications. The agency makes its products available to the public in paper, microfiche,diskette, audiovisual, CD-ROM, and online formats. Sixty thousand customers receiveover one million products a year from NTIS. NTIS operates FedWorld (URL: http://www.fedworld.gov), a kind of cyber-clearinghouse for federal government information onthe Internet. The site began as an electronic bulletin board (EBB) service that enabledinformation seekers to dial into a single EBB and be routed to dozens of other federalEBBs. When the Internet emerged, FedWorld led the way for federal agencies inpioneering new information services on the Web. The FedWorld service has grown intoa general purpose information utility not only for federal information but also for datafrom states and foreign countries. NTIS serves as Web site host for a significant numberof agencies, notably the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS Web site is one of themost active in the nation, logging 30 million hits on April 15, 1999, alone. NTIS alsooperates a 24-hr-a-day fax-back system for paper copies of IRS forms and other docu-ments.

By law, NTIS supports itself with revenues from sales of its products and services, andtherein lies the key to its problems. The agency receives no congressionally appropriatedfunds. As sales from its traditional scientific, technical and engineering information(STEI) products declined, NTIS expanded its reach into all kinds of government infor-mation in an effort to remain institutionally viable as well as to fill gaps in the spectrumof federal information services. In the past decade, the agency’s original concept began tofray as agencies developed their own robust publishing programs and lagged in sendingmaterials to NTIS. The American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 attempted asupply-side remedy by mandating that all STEI publications be sent to NTIS. But the lawlacked enforcement teeth and compliance has been spotty. Although NTIS adds more than50,000 new titles each year, some major STEI sources are not reaching its repository;some of the National Institutes of Health, for example, do not supply their publications toNTIS.

Demand has also fallen as the Internet revolution sweeps government, more agenciesmake their information holdings available free of charge, and NTIS’ prices are perceived

2 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 17/No. 1/2000

as falling on the high side. The department’s August 12 press release cited the exampleof a recent Commerce report,The Emerging Digital Economy II, which could bedownloaded from the departmental Web site for free or purchased from NTIS for $27.

The result appears to have been a losing struggle for NTIS to remain self-supporting.At the very least, NTIS had lost the confidence of its parent department. Commerce’sInspector General informed Congress in early 1999 that the department doubted NTIS’sability to generate sufficient revenues to remain self-supporting. The loss of confidencewas doubtless hastened by recent public debacles involving NTIS. In 1996, NTISundertook a joint project with the Internal Revenue Service known as Cyberfile. The basicidea was that NTIS would serve as IRS’s agent for receipt of electronic tax filings.Cyberfile was a well-publicized failure. Blame fell on both agencies and NTIS wascastigated for lacking the necessary in-house technical and management expertise to carryout Cyberfile.3 In 1999, NTIS again drew adverse media attention over an announcedalliance with an Internet search service, Northern Lights, under an arrangement that wouldhave charged FedWorld users for advanced search functions. Whether justified or not, thepublic perception arose that NTIS was charging for government information that ought tobe free. The adverse media coverage embarrassed the Commerce Department and couldhave served as a motivating trigger for the move to eliminate NTIS.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

The Commerce Department decision to seek abolition of NTIS seems clearly to have beenmotivated by financial considerations to the exclusion of any other rationale. No seriousthought was given to the valuable functions NTIS performs for the federal governmentand the public, and what would become of those functions if NTIS disappears. Thedepartment’s reasoning appears to have been as follows: in following its current businessmodel NTIS has become a financial liability; ergo, close NTIS. Even the most casualobserver can see that Commerce failed to explore another line of reasoning: NTIS hasbecome a financial liability; ergo, seek a redefined mission based on a new business modelthat will ensure NTIS’ financial security. Commerce chose not to explore the possibilitythat NTIS performs governmental functions so valuable that the department should seekcongressional appropriations to support the functions.

The departmental announcement of Secretary Daley’s decision stated that Commercewould give the NTIS collection to the Library of Congress, yet the House ScienceCommittee hearing showed that Commerce had not consulted with the Library in advanceof the announcement. Nor, testified Mallett, had the department consulted with users ofNTIS’ services. Contrary to the Deputy Secretary’s testimony, Commerce didnot under-take a serious and comprehensive review of its potential options. If it had, the departmentwould have recognized that the Library of Congress could not possibly accession theNTIS collection without itself receiving millions of dollars in appropriations.

The deficiencies in Commerce’s decision-making processes were dramatized in thestatement the Library of Congress submitted at the House hearing. Librarian JamesBillington asked that Congress consider “the full spectrum of operations involved incollecting, organizing, and supplying scientific and technical information;”

If NTIS cannot continue in its present form, the federal government must examine which of itsfunctions are sufficiently desirable and effective to merit continued federal support, and how

3National Technical Information

and where such functions can best be sustained to ensure the uninterrupted acquisition,accessibility, and preservation of scientific and technical information. Each function nowcarried out by NTIS should be assessed as to whether the function is needed, whether it shouldbe centralized (or centrally coordinated); whether multiple access points, public and private,should be encouraged; and whether the function should be self-sustaining or publicly supportedin order to serve a larger public good. Only then can a responsible conclusion be reached as towhich agency or agencies are best positioned to ensure future access to information in allformats, even to some low-demand but potentially important products.4

NTIS occupies a stable position among the set of federal STEI agencies, which includesthe National Library of Medicine, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, theDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC), and many others. NTIS carries outvaluable services both for STEI and non-STEI agencies. For example, DTIC releases15,000 to 18,000 titles annually to the public through NTIS. All distribution and orderfulfillment are handled by NTIS. DTIC is not equipped to discharge these tasks for itself,and the same is true for many other agencies. For many agencies, NTIS serves as a servicebureau and/or fulfillment house. The National Center for Health Statistics, for example,has for decades distributed its electronic databases through NTIS, and has no desire to takethe distribution in-house. NTIS is one element in the federal STEI system, and howeverimperfect that system may be, the effects of removing that element will ripple throughoutthe system with potentially deleterious effects to the public good. Removing a financialliability from Commerce could cause even greater liabilities for other agencies.

When accessioning titles into its collection, NTIS performs abstracting and indexingservices on the titles. The agency recoups the cost of these bibliographic services throughits product sales. In many cases, no one else performs these bibliographic controls over thegovernment publications in question. The NTIS catalog database is, thus, a valuableproduct in itself. Private firms such as Dialog acquire the database and resell it to thepublic; the firms have nowhere else to turn for the database. Perhaps NTIS competes withsome private firms, but for others it provides irreplaceable services. Perhaps some NTISactivities can be outsourced if NTIS closes down, but many functions may simply ceaseif NTIS goes away, most especially the central clearinghouse function.

CONCLUSION

The Commerce Department espouses the belief that federal agencies should post theirpublications to the Internet for free distribution, rather than have to pay the fees that NTIScharges. This naı¨ve view ignores the fact that millions of users adamantly prefer printedcopy, particularly when the document in question runs to several hundred pages. Thesuccess of Amazon.com, which uses the Internet primarily to sell print products, is onlyone of many witnesses to the continued vitality of print publications in the Internet age.Another witness is the fact that university presses are now posting full-text copies ofbooks on the Internet and finding that this tactic actually increases print sales. The publicwants information products in print and they will continue to want them in this form,notwithstanding wishful thinking at the Commerce Department.

Every net denizen knows that things disappear from Web sites far more capriciouslythan they disappear from print. This problem Commerce would remedy with a legislativeproposal requiring agencies to maintain STEI publications on their Web sites for three

4 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 17/No. 1/2000

years. It is doubtful that Commerce could get the proposal passed into law in the face ofsurefire opposition from other executive branch agencies such as the Departments ofDefense and Health and Human Services. Even if it were enacted into statute, it is doubtfulthat such a law would have any more success in making an impact on agency behaviorthan the American Technology Preeminence Act did earlier in the 1990s. We already havelaws requiring agencies to send STEI publications to NTIS and to send all publications tothe depository libraries. Many large agencies observe these laws only in the breach; theirbehavior will not change just because Commerce wants off the hook for NTIS.

Perhaps only the Government Printing Office applauds the closing of NTIS, seeing anopportunity to eliminate a bitter rival and to incorporate into the depository libraryprogram the assets of NTIS.5 In all the brouhaha thus far, the White House and the Officeof Management and Budget have been conspicuously silent. Commerce appears to begoing it alone in the effort to eliminate NTIS and does not seem to have done itshomework well.

Arrayed against Commerce are the STEI agencies that see the importance of NTIS inthe STEI chain of production and distribution. The library community has also hammeredCommerce, noting in congressional testimony that the proposal to close NTIS touchesupon all aspects of federal information policy.6 The library community’s central pointswere:

● First, NTIS should not be closed, nor its services transferred, until there is athorough assessment of the full range of NTIS services, alternatives for providingeach service, and the requirement that the program be self-supporting.

● Second, NTIS provides unique centralized services that are critically important tothe ability of the public to locate and have access to the government’s STI resources,including the tangible collection and current agency Web-based publications.

● Third, technology has not yet solved two key challenges in moving towards greaterdissemination of STI reports through the Internet: those challenges are centralizedbibliographic access and permanent public access.

Will the Commerce Department succeed in closing NTIS? Personally, I doubt it verymuch. It is never easy to close down a government agency. In part, this is true becausepeople’s jobs are at stake, and members of Congress from the districts most affected byNTIS job losses were quick to condemn Commerce’s decision. In part, it is true becauseof the discovery that the agency’s functions are valuable and important to preserve, andthat is what has been happening to NTIS since the Commerce announcement. In alllikelihood, Congress and the administration will end up providing appropriations for thecontinued functioning of NTIS.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Quoted from U.S. Department of Commerce press releases (August 12, 1999).2. Testimony of Deputy Secretary of Commerce Robert Mallett on the National Technical Information Service

before the Subcommittee on Technology, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives (Septem-ber, 14, 1999).

5National Technical Information

3. See U.S. General Accounting Office,Tax Systems Modernization: Cyberfile Project Was Poorly Plannedand Managed. Report No. 96–140 (Washington, DC, August 26, 1996).

4. Statement of James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress, before the Subcommittee on Technology,Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives (September 14, 1999).

5. Statement of Michael F. DiMario before the Subcommittee on Technology, Committee on Science, Houseof Representatives, on the Department of Commerce’s Plan to Terminate the National Technical InformationService (September 14, 1999).

6. Statement of Caroline C. Long before the Subcommittee on Technology, House Science Committee, on theProposed Closing of the National Technical Information Service (September 14, 1999). Long testified onbehalf of the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association ofResearch Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association. See also thestatement of ALA’s Government Documents Roundtable.

6 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 17/No. 1/2000