1. F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( E C O N O M I C
D E V E L O P M E N T A N D K N O W L E D G E C I T Y )
C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T
Agenda Item 5.2
OFFICE OF KNOWLEDGE CAPITAL (OKC) EVALUATION 12 April 2011
Presenter: Austin Ley, Manager City Research
Purpose and background
1. In December 2007 Council approved the establishment of the Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC), in
partnership with Melbourne’s eight metropolitan universities and the Committee for Melbourne, for a three
year term, ending on 30 June 2011. Evaluating the OKC is a 2011 Council Plan Action and Initiative.
2. Attachment 2 evaluates the OKC’s performance in enhancing Melbourne's reputation as a knowledge city,
considers and concludes the best options for the future, then recommends a preferred option and the
resources required to achieve Council’s knowledge city objectives.
Key issues
3. The OKC was successful in promoting Melbourne as a knowledge city, locally, nationally and globally
and in forming links with similar ‘knowledge cities’ as summarised in Attachment 3 and as evidenced by:
3.1. Melbourne winning the Most Admired Knowledge City Award (MAKCi);
3.2. hosting the 2010 World Knowledge City Summit, Melbourne Leaders’ Forum and Knowledge
Week;
3.3. creation of an international ‘Knowledge Capital’ network including Manchester, Boston and Dublin;
and
3.4. initiating and achieving continued collaborative support for running the student welcome desk.
4. The City of Melbourne’s leadership role and success in developing the OKC to raise Melbourne’s profile
as a knowledge city is now widely recognised by key stakeholders locally, nationally and globally.
5. Stakeholders consider that this success and the momentum that it has generated needs to be maintained,
but the OKC needs to change. Options considered include: maintaining the existing model; relocating it to
another organisation; developing it as an independent organisation; or developing an alternative with a
specific City of Melbourne organisational focus.
6. The preferred option would be to develop an alternative, but there was no agreement regarding its form.
Consequently the recommended option is for the City of Melbourne to take control of its knowledge city
agenda by embedding it within the organisation and collaborating with other organisations on the delivery
of specific projects as follows:
6.1. Maintaining international links with other knowledge cities and organisations by a councillor
attending the 2011 Knowledge Cities World Summit and MAKCi Awards; and
6.2. Reducing the current four OKC EFT positions to two and appointing:
6.2.1. An International Education Project Officer to run the student welcome desk and link it to
other City of Melbourne and external student initiatives; and
Page 1 of 21

2. Attachments:
1. Supporting Attachment
2. Summary of Stakeholder Interviews
3. Summary of OKC Strategic Plan Review
2.
6.2.2. A Knowledge City Coordinator to provide a key point of contact to:
6.2.2.1. Make submissions to relevant awards and programs e.g. MAKCi;
6.2.2.2. Map and promote Melbourne's knowledge assets, networks and capabilities;
6.2.2.3. Run Knowledge Week to promote item 6.2.2.2; and
6.2.2.4. Collaborate with universities on a project specific basis e.g. Australian Research
Council projects.
7. In addition Council could write to the Premier seeking funds for a study to determine how to facilitate the
city’s development as a knowledge based economy, to be used for policy development and advocacy.
Recommendation from management
8. That the Future Melbourne Committee recommends Council discontinues the Office of Knowledge Capital
on 30 June 2011 and funds an International Education Project Officer and a Knowledge City Coordinator
at a cost of $200,000, with additional funding to be sourced externally on a project specific basis.
Page 2 of 21

3. 1.
SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT 1
Legal
1. The Office of Knowledge Captial is a business unit within the City of Melbourne funded for three
years in partnership with Melbourne’s eight metropolitan universities and with the Committee for
Melbourne a non-financial partner. This funding agreement will end on 30 June 2011.
Finance
2. Core revenue of approximately $300,000 per annum for the first three years of the OKC’s
operation was provided by the founding partners, based on a three tiered funding model.
Sponsorships were sourced to provide additional revenue to fund specific projects.
3. Council contributed $100,000 in the first two years and $200,000 in the third with the $100,000
increase to assist in hosting the Knowledge Cities World Summit 2010.
4. Figure1 sets out the total budget for the OKC for the three years of its operation and the proposed
budget for the new Knowledge Melbourne team.
Figure 1 Actual Annual OKC Budget and Projected Knowledge Melbourne Budget
2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 -12
Revenue $483,086 $515,000 $782,194 $146,500
Expenditure $564,229 $686,672 $973,582 $346,500
Cost To Council $81,143 $170,672 $191,388 $200,000
Actual Annual OKC Budget
Proposed Knowledge
Melbourne Budget
5. Figure 1 above shows that the net cost to Council would involve a core cost of $200,000 the same
as in the 2010-11 financial year, with any additional funding to be sourced on a project specific
basis.
Conflict of interest
6. The OKC is located within the City Planning and Infrastructure Division and Geoff Lawler, the
director of that division, has declared an indirect interest in that he is an unremunerated member of
two course advisory committees at the University of Melbourne.
Stakeholder consultation
7. Attachment 2 summarises the following stakeholder consultation undertaken in the evaluation, by
Austin Ley, Manager City Research and Helen Steel, Team Leader OKC :
Attachment 1
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
12 April 2011
Page 3 of 21

4. 2.
7.1. Interviews with Vice Chancellors and/or representatives of : Australian Catholic University,
University of Ballarat, Deakin University, La Trobe University, Monash University, RMIT
University, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Melbourne and Victoria
University;
7.2. Interviews with Mr Andrew McLeod CEO, Committee for Melbourne and Mr Gordon
Noble, Deputy CEO, Committee for Melbourne;
7.3. Interviews with key individuals with specific expertise in this subject, including: Dr Marcus
Spiller, SGS Economics; Prof Bruce Wilson, Manager PASCAL PURE project, Mr David
Hanna, Deputy Secretary of the State Department of Business and Innovation, Ms Gael
Andrews, Unigateway and Mr Peter Chaffey and Mr David Campbell both former OKC
executives; and
7.4. Meetings chaired by Dr Kathy Alexander, CEO, City of Melbourne and members of the
Local Organising Committee of the Melbourne 2010 Knowledge Cities World Summit, Mr
Peter Yates, Mr Leon Kempler.
7.5. Discussions with the International Education Advisory Group.
Additional Information Used in the OKC Evaluation
8. Additional information was obtained from:
8.1. An evaluation of the OKC Strategic Plan including feedback on specific events and activities
such as Knowledge Week; and
8.2. The Melbourne Leaders’ Forum, held as part of the Melbourne 2010 Knowledge Cities
World Summit, chaired by Dr Kathy Alexander.
Relation to Council policy
9. This paper has been prepared in response to Council’s Annual Plan for 2010-11 Action and
Initiative to evaluate the Office of Knowledge Capital.
10. The recommendations are consistent with the desire for Melbourne to be a knowledge city, the
fourth goal of both Future Melbourne and Council Plan 2009 - 2013.
11. Future Melbourne states that as a knowledge city, Melbourne will:
11.1. use the collective power of mind and experience to drive the city's prosperity, its ability to
compete globally and the quality of life its people enjoy;
11.2. support a well-resourced education and research system producing a highly skilled and
talented workforce;
11.3. celebrate and promote its scientific research institutions and science based businesses as
generators of innovation in the city;
11.4. have a vibrant, collaborative, city-based lifelong learning culture which will be enabled and
amplified by a universal and dynamic online culture that connects its people to each other
and to the world;
11.5. develop its world-class universities, excellent schools and scientific institutions and
businesses to rank among the world's best centres for research and innovation;
Page 4 of 21

5. 3.
11.6. be a place where people of all ages, cultures and abilities from all parts of the city can access
affordable education. Ideas and research will be transformed into innovative goods and
services, supported by a vibrant culture of enterprise and venture capital investment that
enjoys easy access to some of the brightest and leading scientists in their fields; and
11.7. provide manifold avenues to explore ideas in formal and informal ways, value all forms of
learning and treat education as a lifelong process.
12. Council Plan Goal 4 is for Melbourne to be a knowledge city. The outcomes and objectives of this
goal are stated as follows:
12.1. Outcome 4.1 Objectives: Local and international students choose Melbourne:
4.1.1 Provide support and programs for international, students
4.1.2 Advocate on behalf of students
12.2. Outcome 4.2 Objectives: High quality knowledge infrastructure:
4.2.1 Ensure the availability of a range of educational facilities in the municipality including
universities, private colleges and centres for primary and secondary education
4.2.2 Create and support industry specific research and development opportunities
4.2.3 Support the Office of Knowledge Capital to implement its strategic plan
4.2.4 Support innovation within and growth of targeted industry sectors
Environmental sustainability
13. The proposal does not have any direct environmental sustainability issues but does provide Council
with the opportunity to further promote environmental sustainability through ongoing collaboration
with Melbourne’s universities and knowledge sector. It also provides an opportunity for new
environmental sustainability initiatives to be showcased as part of the proposed Melbourne
knowledge capability statement and Knowledge Week.
Page 5 of 21

6. Attachment 2
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
12 April 2011
DM#6379273 1/10
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND FEEDBACK
The following consolidates and summarises the results of the stakeholder consultation undertaken
in the evaluation of the Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC) which comprised the following:
• Interviews conducted from late January to early March 2011 by Austin Ley, Manager City
Research and Helen Steel, Team Leader OKC, with:
o Vice Chancellors and or representatives of : Australian Catholic University, University
of Ballarat, Deakin University, La Trobe University, Monash University, RMIT
University, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Melbourne and
Victoria University
o Mr Andrew McLeod, CEO of the Committee for Melbourne and Mr Gordon Noble,
Deputy CEO, Committee for Melbourne
o key individuals with specific expertise in this subject, including: Dr Marcus Spiller,
SGS Economics; Prof Bruce Wilson, Manager PASCAL PURE project, Mr David
Hanna, Deputy Secretary of the State Department of Business and Innovation, Ms Gael
Andrews, Unigateway and Mr Peter Chaffey and Mr David Campbell both former
OKC executives.
Additional stakeholder feedback on the OKC was obtained from:
• Meetings chaired by Dr Kathy Alexander, CEO, City of Melbourne and members of the Local
Organising Committee of the Melbourne 2010 Knowledge Cities World Summit, Mr Peter
Yates, Mr Leon Kempler and Mr George Pappas.
• Discussions with the International Education Advisory Group.
The stakeholder interviews were structured around the following main areas.
1. The relationship between the City of Melbourne and the universities.
2. The value of a collective relationship between the City of Melbourne the universities and
other key organisations, in developing the concept of Melbourne as a knowledge city.
3. The key issues, functions and projects that should be addressed or undertaken by a
collective relationship.
4 The composition, governance structure and funding of the body to deliver these projects
and functions.
5 The City of Melbourne’s role.
6 The appropriate roles and level of involvement of representatives from the participating
organisations.
7 The appropriate level of funding.
8 The operation of the OKC what worked, what didn’t and what lessons can be learned
which should inform any new collective relationship.
Page 6 of 21

7. DM#6379273 2/10
1 The relationship between the City of Melbourne and the universities
All the universities want a relationship with the City of Melbourne, but vary in their views
regarding the level of intensity of this relationship as follows:
Very High Melbourne, RMIT
High Victoria
Medium Swinburne, Deakin and Latrobe
Low Monash (of concern), ACU and Ballarat
Some relationships are very positive, including those universities with new Vice Chancellors.
Other relationships are not as positive and require particular attention.
Conclusion
Given the significance of the Education sector within the municipality’s economy and community,
the City for Melbourne should further ensure it develops sound individual relationships with each
university.
2 The value of a collective relationship between the City of Melbourne the universities and
other key organisations in developing the concept of Melbourne as a knowledge city.
All stakeholders agree that a collective relationship provides a potential value-add beyond an
individual relationship, but again vary in their views as to which universities and organisations
should form part of that collective.
As might be expected those universities with a greater concentration of activities within the City of
Melbourne municipality would prefer a narrower focus on centrally located universities.
However, other more metropolitan and regional universities still see value in a collective
relationship, based on the notion that what is good for Melbourne is good for the regions.
The stakeholders noted that a number of opportunities for the universities to have collaborative
discussions already exist, eg the Victorian Vice Chancellors Forum, hence any additional collective
relationship must not duplicate these.
In addition the knowledge city concept means different things to different people. The universities
have different views and different relationships with their stakeholders.
Conclusions
A key question is how the City of Melbourne can best connect with the universities and the higher
education sector.
Intense competition has made cooperation/collaboration difficult. The collective relationship can’t
be free floating. Universities will collaborate on projects with specific goals where it is clearly in
each university’s interest to participate. As an example the Deputy Vice Chancellors’ Research
group has a strength in common interest versus competition.
Given the existing opportunities universities have for collaborative discussions and their differing
views and competing interests regarding the concept of a knowledge city, the City of Melbourne
would be better placed developing its relationships with the universities on a project specific basis.
3 The key issues, functions and projects that should be addressed or undertaken by a
collective relationship.
The following lists a range of functions and projects that stakeholders consider should be addressed
or undertaken by a collective relationship.
3.1 Branding and promoting Melbourne as a knowledge city
Page 7 of 21

8. DM#6379273 3/10
3.2 Providing a focal point for issues relating to Melbourne as a knowledge city, a
“gateway” role to direct and facilitate actions and projects
3.3 Facilitation
3.4 Improving the international student experience and dealing with student issues
3.5 Working collaboratively with universities on city issues
3.6 Capitalising on research opportunities
3.7 Advocacy
3.1 Branding and promoting Melbourne as a knowledge city
The aim should be to give substance to the claim that Melbourne is a knowledge city. To an extent
the city is a knowledge city, but has not realised its significant potential.
Positioning and promoting Melbourne benefits all universities. Marketing and branding Melbourne
as a knowledge city to attract students and researchers is considered to be the main function of any
collective endeavour. There needs to be a common approach to:
• capitalising on the current momentum resulting from Melbourne wining the “Most
Admired Knowledge City” award, hosting the World Knowledge City Summit and
continuing the links established with other knowledge cities.
• branding positioning and promoting Melbourne as a Knowledge city, focussing on
metropolitan Melbourne as a city with great institutions, Melbourne and Victoria as an
outstanding place to stay, study and research.
• promoting Melbourne and the capabilities of its institutes as leaders in education and
research, focussing on the city’s “collective” strengths as exhibited by the Excellence in
Research in Australia (ERA) report on university rankings. For example Melbourne has
key strengths in the “Biological and Bio chemical sciences”, “Human Movement and
Sports Services” and the “Built Environment”. These strengths need to be discussed and
agreed by the universities and projects showcasing them identified.
• promoting Melbourne as an “Arts Sport and Knowledge” city “ASK”, focussing the city’s
strengths in culture and fashion. In this respect the concept of “Knowledge Melbourne” has
been proposed as an alternative to the term “Office of Knowledge Capital”.
• keep Melbourne “front of mind” when students are considering where to study presenting a
“critical mass” showing the concentration of high quality education Melbourne has to offer.
• promoting the notion that there is something special about the space called Melbourne
which can be used to attract global attention and harness research opportunities.
• creating a sense of being part of a Knowledge City, a sense of shared purpose in developing
a richer distinctive economy. To this end Melbourne’s knowledge assets, organisations and
activities need to be mapped and highlighted. Knowledge Week provides a good
opportunity to highlight and promote these assets.
• correcting any negative perceptions about Melbourne in a proactive planned way.
3.2 Providing a focal point for issues relating to Melbourne as a knowledge city, a
“gateway” role to direct and facilitate actions and projects
Any collective endeavour needs have a “clearinghouse” or “gateway” function, that is a first point
of contact and referral for any issues concerning Melbourne’s development as a Knowledge City.
This would involve listing questions, opportunities, proposals, ideas, and events for consideration
by Steering committee, then allowing the universities to self select in collaboration, but not acting
as a broker for the universities.
Page 8 of 21

9. DM#6379273 4/10
This function also involves determining who should be contacted to provide a response, but not
undertaking the specific tasks or projects. It would provide a guide to relevant networks explaining
the nature of their operation.
This single point of contact could also provide a summary of “what’s on” regarding knowledge
activities in Melbourne. It would also need to have mapped Melbourne’s Knowledge assets,
organisations and activities in order to provide a referral service.
3.3 Facilitation
The “collective relationship” should focus on common, not competing areas. The Student
Welcome Desk (SWD) is a good example.
The relationship should facilitate organisational (administrative or corporate) connections between
the universities. Typically universities collaborate on research activities which are predominately
project or subject area based as exemplified by the Deputy Vice Chancellors Research group, which
meets every 2-3 months. Organisational connections are less common.
The knowledge city concept needs reinforcing and fostering. A facilitation function would be to
bring Melbourne’s knowledge participants together in a more routine more focussed way, to
provide opportunities for people to meet who wouldn’t otherwise.
3.4 Improving the international student experience and dealing with student issues
There is a need to promote Melbourne as an internationally recognised knowledge city, a place to
live, work and study, to ensure Melbourne is a city of choice for students, compared to other cities
such as Singapore and Sydney.
International students’ education decisions are based on the reputation of individual universities and
the cities in which these universities are located. The welfare of the city’s student population is
most important. Universities generally look after the welfare of their students, but the city’s
reputation as a place to live, work and study is a collective responsibility. There is a need to ensure
that Melbourne remains a city of choice for students and that their experience meets or exceeds
expectations.
The quality of international students’ housing in Melbourne needs improvement. This could be a
collaborative project because all universities have a common interest in ensuring students are
housed appropriately.
The SWD is considered a very good initiative, an excellent example of collaborative effort and in
need of continued support and further developed.
A social program for international students would be of great interest to employers.
There needs to be a collective voice among universities, TAFES and the State government on the
improving the student experience in Melbourne. The TAFE sector needs to be involved in a way
that doesn’t alienate the universities.
3.5 Working collaboratively with universities on city issues
Melbourne has a diverse range of issues and the universities have the expertise to address them.
The universities and relevant institutes eg the Australia Housing and Urban Research Institute
(AHURI), could provide a forum and collective voice for developing responses to major city issues.
This could also involve bringing leading academics to Melbourne to work or present on these
issues. Some suggested subjects include:
• becoming a sustainable City and developing a consistent approach regarding carbon tax
• developing a policy on transport infrastructure to address congestion issues
• responding to population growth, affordable housing and urban settlement in the light of the
recent floods
• dealing with the needs of marginal populations, improving cultural tolerance and the
welfare of culturally disadvantaged communities.
Page 9 of 21

10. DM#6379273 5/10
3.6 Capitalising on research opportunities
There is a need to clarify City of Melbourne’s research interests in “big topics” eg a centre for
strategic research. There is an opportunity to do this by coordination of Australian Research
Council (ARC) linkage grants with the Deputy Vice Chancellors Research group. Established ARC
relationships are considered to have a greater chance of success than hastily prepared “speed
dating” approaches.
Research Suggestions included the following:
How Melbourne’s Knowledge economy works
This study would examine and document how Melbourne’s Knowledge economy works” to explain
the process and the drivers involved and answer the following questions:
• Is it possible to intervene in the locational forces to redistribute knowledge activities?
• How did Melbourne transfer from a manufacturing economy?
• What’s the role of different sized businesses, of urban redevelopment?
It would need to be metro based and could be undertaken potentially with the involvement of
middle and outer municipalities. The outcomes of this project would be very valuable in supporting
future advocacy activities.
City & Regional Links
There is a need to examine regional cities issues such as transport and innovation and the value of
the links between Melbourne and its regions.
3.7 Advocacy
The is a very important need for a collective group to enable the education sector to influence and
access government, to inform and shape State and Federal government policy, to deliver better
solutions for international education, eg regarding public transport and student housing.
The “How Melbourne’s Knowledge economy works” research study listed above would take a
broader perspective than the 2007 Howard partners report on the universities contribution to
Melbourne. It would enable the education sector to provide advice, leverage existing resources and
raise the consciousness among a diverse range of stakeholders to inform and shape State and
Federal government policy.
Conclusions
Clearly there is a wide range of opportunities for collaboration with universities and other relevant
organisations focused on specific projects and limited to the resources available. These projects
should involve the following:
• Maintaining and developing the existing international links with other Knowledge Cities and
organisations by a councillor attending the World Knowledge Cities Summit 2011.
• Adopting the term “Knowledge Melbourne” to brand and promote Melbourne as a knowledge
city, capitalising on the momentum already created.
• Supporting the SWD and combining it with other City of Melbourne programs for international
students delivered by the Community Safety and Wellbeing branch, such as the Lord Mayor’s
student welcome and the “Couch”.
• Continuing to develop Knowledge week to promote Melbourne's knowledge capability and
foster networks.
In addition a “Knowledge Melbourne” coordinating role should be created within the City of
Melbourne to provide:
Page 10 of 21

11. DM#6379273 6/10
• a key point of contact for knowledge city issues
• make submissions to relevant awards and programs e.g. MAKCi
• map and promote Melbourne's knowledge assets, networks and capabilities
• coordinate Knowledge week and
• coordinate the City of Melbourne’s collaboration with universities on ARC projects.
Collaboration with the universities regarding ARC linkage projects already occurs, but could be
better focussed and coordinated by the City of Melbourne.
Advocacy by or on behalf of a collective group of essentially competing organisations is
problematic, as illustrated by the difficulty the OKC faced in gaining collective agreement on its
activities.
Generally the stakeholders consider advocacy should occur on behalf of the metropolitan area, with
some considering this should extend to regional Victoria. Consequently advocacy needs to be
tackled at a higher level than the current OKC structure provides.
There needs to be a more comprehensive examination of Melbourne’s knowledge economy than the
original Howard Partners report. This study should be separately championed by a high profile
individual, with support across the education sector and the State government at a cost in the order
of $500,000.
Council could write to the Premier seeking funds for such study to identify the focus of and provide
evidence to strengthen ability for a collective group to advocate on behalf of Melbourne’s
knowledge sector.
4 The composition, governance structure and funding of the body to deliver these projects
and functions?
The following range of governance structure options were presented for consideration including the
following:
• Retain the existing OKC model housed by the City of Melbourne
• Relocate the OKC within another organisation
• Develop the OKC as an independent organisation including the Committee for Melbourne,
a university or the State Government
• Discontinue with the OKC model and develop an alternative.
Stakeholders varied in their views as to the best option.
Suggestions for relocating the OKC within another organisation included the Committee for
Melbourne, a university or the State Government.
The Committee for Melbourne considered they were a key member but not the appropriate
organisation to house the OKC.
Relocating the OKC to a university was not considered a good option given the competitive nature
of the universities. There was also concern with a university taking responsibility, that the OKC
might potentially become just another bureaucratic function of that university, alienating other
universities.
There was general agreement that the OKC needs State government involvement, preferably with
the Premier’s support, but not running it.
Developing the OKC as an independent organisation was considered problematic because it would
then need to generate revenue. Generating revenue is difficult and could lead the organisation into
peripheral areas.
Page 11 of 21

12. DM#6379273 7/10
The general view was that the universities and the Committee for Melbourne would prefer to
continue to be involved with the City of Melbourne in collectively developing and promoting
Melbourne as a Knowledge city, but that an alternative model to the OKC was preferable. The
characteristics of this alternative model are that it:
• should be either more centrally City of Melbourne focussed or Metropolitan focussed with
a broader representation
• needs to “break the mould” of university sector representation and be free of individual
organisation’s interests, but still capable of influencing them.
• includes representatives from: the State government, (with the Premier’s and ministerial
backing); other councils with universities; higher education organisations eg TAFEs; other
peak business representatives, eg VECCI, High Tech business representatives and the
Central Activity District councils.
Other general comments included that the preferred option needs to have a champion, an
independent chair. It should collaborate with organisations on a projects specific basis as required.
It should work with business, but not duplicate the universities’ existing relationships.
The preferred option needs to stay focussed and prove how it adds value, then it will grow. One
key proposal was that the key objectives and projects need to be determined then the appropriate
representatives found to deliver them.
Conclusions
Determining the composition, governance structure and funding of a body to deliver the projects
and functions discussed in the previous section is dependent on gaining agreement on these projects
and functions.
Given the diverse ranges of views and interests, the best solution is for the City of Melbourne to
take control of its Knowledge Melbourne agenda, by providing a point of contact, administration
and coordination for its knowledge related issues and undertaking a limited number of projects.
Embedding this function within the City of Melbourne will enable it to link with and shape
Council’s other knowledge and student activities.
Other knowledge activities, projects and initiatives, external to the City of Melbourne could then be
agreed and funded separately.
This would be a more effective approach because the current model creates different expectations
on the part of the organisations contributing to the OKC regarding what they receive for their
contributions.
5 The City of Melbourne’s role
There were different views regarding the City of Melbourne’s role from, “beneficial but not vital”,
a “strategic partner”, to a “key lead role”, with the majority favouring the latter view.
The most pertinent comment was that the City of Melbourne needs to be more articulate about what
it wants from the OKC and the education sector.
Many of the stakeholders considered that the City of Melbourne has a role as an honest broker and
facilitator. Its interests concern the City of Melbourne community and the municipality. The
education sector and the Knowledge economy are vital to Melbourne’s future and need to be kept
front of mind within the council. To ensure support for education sector and the Knowledge
economy goes beyond the four year term of any one council, this role needs to be embedded into
the organisation.
Council needs to resource and mobilize activities to promote Melbourne as a Knowledge city. This
role includes coordination, honest brokering, providing access to government, marketing
Melbourne as green and clean, working with the universities to deal with issues regarding the
Page 12 of 21

13. DM#6379273 8/10
students’ Melbourne experience and asking the knowledge community about how to respond to big
issues referred to above.
Conclusions
Stakeholders, locally and internationally recognise the successful leadership role the City of
Melbourne has taken in promoting Melbourne as a knowledge city. They consider the City of
Melbourne has continuing central role to play in this regard.
The City of Melbourne needs to decide what role it wants. As concluded in previous sections of
this paper, the City of Melbourne should take control of its Knowledge Melbourne agenda and
embed it within the organisation.
6 The appropriate roles and level of involvement of representatives from the participating
organisations
The Vice Chancellors will decide the appropriate university representative, but representation needs
to be at the senior level in the participating organisations. Activities must be common to the
universities’ core agendas, focus on a limited number of projects and initiatives and Melbourne’s
strengths as identified in the Universities ranking report.
Additional representation was suggested from the following:
• education institutions and knowledge based industry groups as a community.
• Uni gateway
• representatives from peak bodies eg VECCI.
• Regional Development Authorities.
There is a need to involve people with passion. It was also suggested that a core group of visionary
people need to be involved to “challenge and inspire and engage” and make the organisation
something special and engage a volunteers group to make it work.
Conclusion
The above responses confirm the need to adopt a project specific approach to working
collaboratively as this will make it easier to find likeminded, enthusiastic representatives from
relevant organisations who share common interests in specific projects.
7 The appropriate level of funding
The general view was that the current funding model is appropriate, namely core funding for the
administration function with any agreed additional projects/functions to be funded separately.
There were different views regarding a “flat rate” with all organisations paying the same, versus the
existing “tiered” funding model with organisations paying according to their particular level of
engagement.
In addition to the above some stakeholders suggested that the State Government should provide
seed funding and that benefactor funding should be sought, eg an endowment such as that which
established the Wheeler Centre.
Apart from the universities, support should be sought from other business organisations with
interests in the knowledge and skills development; suggestions included Linfox, Australia Post and
the property industry.
The stakeholders agreed that any future organisation charged with the role of developing and
promoting Melbourne’s knowledge interests needs to have a core administrative capacity and
sufficient resources to deliver a specified number of projects. To be effective this would require a
minimum of approximately $500,000 for core staff and administration focussing on 2-3 key
projects or events, with separate sponsorship sourced to fund any additional projects.
Conclusion
Page 13 of 21

14. DM#6379273 9/10
Ideally a budget of approximately $500,000 should be set aside to provide core administration and
deliver 2-3 key projects or events, discussed in the previous section.
It is unrealistic to consider that the City of Melbourne should take on this responsibility and
resource it to value of $500,000.
It would be more appropriate if the City of Melbourne adopted a new Knowledge Melbourne role
by supporting the SWD and appointing a Knowledge City coordinator as described earlier. These
new project specific activities could be undertaken for $200,000, equivalent to the City of
Melbourne’s funding for the OKC’s activities in the 2010-11 financial year. Any additional
funding should be sourced externally on a project specific basis.
6 The operation of the OKC what worked, what didn’t and what lessons can be learned
which should inform any new collective relationship.
The OKC was considered a bold initiative from the outset and the “right thing to do”. There were
mixed views from the stakeholders about the extent of its success, largely due to different
expectations and levels of engagement from the participants.
The summit and the Melbourne Leaders Forum raised the profile of a knowledge based economy
and the city’s place or role.
The OKC is premised on the idea that universities are the bedrock of the knowledge economy, but
the knowledge economy works in more subtle ways, involving many other educational
organisations, eg TAFEs and companies involved in skill development, research and innovation.
On the positive side the OKC had a lot of energy and demonstrated innovative leadership and the
significance of higher education studies.
On the negative side it was not focussed, the agenda was too broad and lacked business
involvement.
The projects and initiatives that all agree worked well include:
Student welcome desk
The Student Welcome Desk is seen as providing a very important example of collaboration in
promoting Melbourne and providing an excellent service to international students.
A Knowledge week
In future this could incorporate a practitioners session e.g. with RDOs from the different regions. It
also needs to be careful not to duplicate the innovation forum.
There are mixed views about the success of the OKC’s other activities
The Knowledge City World Summit
Wining the right to host the summit and the Most Admired Knowledge City Award raised
Melbourne’s knowledge profile locally and internationally. The summit was generally considered a
success, but did not meet the University of Melbourne’s expectations as it did not generate a lot of
engagement from the community, in particular industry eg Nab & BHP.
The Pascal PURE project
This project raised Melbourne’s knowledge profile internationally. There was a divergence of views
regarding the benefits from the PURE self assessment and OECD projects at the local level. A
number of universities were heavily engaged and considered these projects to be valuable, however
clearly other universities became disengaged.
The attempt at developing a Portal was not successful. A comment was made that it is important
not to get involved in “difficult” spaces where the universities compete eg recruitment and to stick
to the “softer” spaces eg the Student Welcome Desk.
Conclusions
Overall the OKC raised the Melbourne’s knowledge profile, particularly on the international front.
Page 14 of 21

15. DM#6379273 10/10
Major weakness of the OKC were considered to be poor communication, lack of focus and
direction as demonstrated by the attempt to tackle too many “opportunities” with insufficient
resources, thereby spreading the OKC staff “too thinly ”.
The universities were also concerned about a lack of transparency in the selection of some projects,
became disengaged, their enthusiasm and support began to wain, exacerbating the lack of direction.
Key lessons learned include:
• avoiding duplicating the universities’ and other organisations activities, which makes those
organisations less inclined to collaborate
• ensuring project selection is transparent.
The above comments confirm the need to consolidate a core function within the City of Melbourne,
focussed on specific City of Melbourne knowledge projects and issues to work. This should make
project selection more transparent and minimise the likelihood of duplication, given the City of
Melbourne’s corporate planning and budget processes. In turn this should assist in gaining
collaboration from enthusiastic, “likeminded” representatives from relevant organisations.
Page 15 of 21

16. 1
SUMMARY OF OKC STRATEGIC PLAN REVIEW
The Office of Knowledge Capital was established in 2008 for an initial three year period by
the Melbourne Vice Chancellors’ Forum, led by then Lord Mayor John So and in conjunction
with the Vice Chancellors from Melbourne’s eight major universities: Australian Catholic
University; Deakin University; La Trobe University; Monash University; RMIT University;
Swinburne University, University of Melbourne and Victoria University. The Committee for
Melbourne was also a founding member.
The mission of the office was to collaborate to develop and promote Melbourne as
Australia’s Knowledge Capital. To ensure a clear focus on outcomes that would deliver
against the mission, three major strategic objectives were identified:
1. Develop and promote Melbourne locally, nationally and globally to achieve
recognition as “Australia’s Knowledge Capital” and a “Global University City”;
2. Facilitate collaboration between the Office of Knowledge Capital and governments,
businesses and other communities; and
3. Form links with similar ‘knowledge cities’ to enable mutually beneficial interactions.
The attached evaluation of the 21 actions listed in the strategic plan indicates that 3 actions
set against the outcomes were misaligned and not considered within the scope of its charter.
Consequently the assessment of the remaining 18 actions shows that the OKC implemented
12 out of the remaining 18 actions and that 6 were found to be not viable during this period.
In the three years of operation the OKC delivered against each of the three nominated
objectives with varying degrees of success. Some of the highlights included the
establishment of the Student Welcome Desk at Melbourne Airport, the completion of the
international PURE benchmarking study, the delivery of the 2010 Knowledge Cities World
Summit and Melbourne Knowledge Week and the awarding of Melbourne as the 2010 Most
Admired Knowledge City.
The Office of Knowledge Capital (OKC) was initially operated as a business unit of the City
of Melbourne’s Sustainability and Regulatory Services division and from June 2010 became
a business unit within the City Research branch. The OKC is owned and operated by the City
of Melbourne on behalf of and in conjunction with, its partners. The office was initially
staffed with an Executive Director, Project Coordinator and Business Coordinator with
additional staff and contractors brought in on a projects need basis.
Funding for the operational costs of approximately $300,000 per annum was provided by the
universities as founding partners and based on a three-tiered funding model, with City of
Melbourne contributing $100,000 annually. The Committee for Melbourne agreed to provide
annual “in kind” administrative support up to the value of $10,000. Additional funding was
sought for projects and initiatives through sponsorship from various partners including the
State Government.
Attachment 3
Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee
12 April 2011
Page 16 of 21

17. 2
The office has recently undergone a review of the first three years of activity to ascertain the
viability of continued operations. Each of the key partners have been interviewed and asked
a series of questions to assist in determining the perceived success of the delivered outcomes,
the relationship that each would like with the City of Melbourne and whether there is a future
role for the OKC to play in developing Melbourne’s Knowledge City agenda.
The findings indicated that there were varying degrees of success in relation to delivery of the
OKC strategic plan; however, all stakeholders agreed that a continued collective approach to
branding and promoting Melbourne as a knowledge city was essential in ensuring that
Melbourne remains a destination of choice for students, researchers and knowledge workers.
In addition, each acknowledged their desire to have an ongoing relationship with the City of
Melbourne and recognised the leadership role that Melbourne City Council took with regard
to founding the OKC.
The key partners interviewed consider there is a need to capitalise on the momentum built
over the last three years, particularly as a result of the 2010 Knowledge Cities World Summit
and recognition Melbourne has received as the recipient of the Most Admired Knowledge
City (MAKCi) award.
Page 17 of 21

18. 3
Objective Outcome Target Success Indicator
Facilitate collaborations
between the OKC and
governments, businesses and
other communities.
Closer partnering with all levels of
government and their agencies.
Creation of a stronger innovation culture to
integrate the actions of universities, research
institutes, businesses and governments.
Number of collaborative initiatives undertaken and the benefits
delivered by each.
Evidence of knowledge transfer, commercialisation of research,
collaboration between key groups.
Action Achievements
1. Generate opportunities to enhance
awareness of Melbourne’s university
sector and its importance.
2. Develop strategies for improved
collaboration between universities and
local governments.
3. Convene regular meetings of the
Knowledge Capital Steering Group to
manage implementation of this Strategic
Plan.
4. Determine how the ‘Knowledge Capital’
concept might be applied beyond the
University Sector.
5. Investigate the conduct of suitable
awareness-raising events, such as an all-
campus Town & Gown Dinner at the
Town Hall, or an Academic Parade.
6. Examine the possibility of introducing a
‘Knowledge Capital Prize’ at each partner
university
7. Investigate opportunities for secondment
of university staff to the OKC.
8. Provide executive and administrative
The OKC suite of projects have demonstrated what can be
achieved through collaboration between the City of Melbourne,
university partners, the Committee for Melbourne and others,
especially the State Government. Examples of these include:
• Student Welcome Desk
• CHUM/IMAP – Work Integrated Learning Project
• Knowledge Cities World Summit
• Melbourne Knowledge Week
• PURE PASCAL Benchmarking Project
The MVCF adopted OKC strategic plan 23 November 2007
and subsequent review was held 18 September 2008.
Attendance at steering group meetings by a number of
university representatives was sporadic. This combined with
the high turnover of VC representatives meant that the steering
committee reviewed activities rather than provided leadership
of the OKC.
Subsequently the strategic plan was not revised to reflect
changes in the sector as intended. There were also limitations as
to what could be achieved within the timeframes and budget
constraints and given the significant scope of work.
MVCF meetings were held with John So chairing and OKC
Page 18 of 21

19. 4
support for the Melbourne Vice
Chancellors Forum (MVCF) and conduct
at least two meetings annually.
9. Annually review and update the OKC
Strategic Plan.
10. Develop a methodology for use of the
City of Melbourne as a ‘laboratory’ to test
and develop knowledge capabilities.
providing administrative support. The MVCF was disbanded
after new CoM administration took office in 2009. An OKC
representative attended a number of VVCC meetings
subsequently.
Preliminary research was done regarding the following actions,
but they were not found to be viable
• Awarding a ‘Knowledge Capital Prize’ at each partner
university.
• Opportunities for secondment of university staff to the OKC.
• Developing a methodology for use of the City of Melbourne
as a ‘laboratory’ to test and develop knowledge capabilities.
• Conduct awareness-raising events, such as an all-campus
Town & Gown Dinner at the Town Hall, or an Academic
Parade.
Objective Outcome Target Success Indicator
Form and utilise mutually
beneficial links with other
‘knowledge cities’.
Global linkages to other knowledge capitals. Productive interaction with other cities and organisations
through information and people exchanges, joint projects, study
Action Achievements
1. Investigate and identify other cities that
are pursuing a ‘knowledge’ agenda.
2. Contact OKC-like organisations in other
knowledge cities to establish links and
exchange ideas.
3. Develop plan to establish, or bid for, an
international Knowledge Capitals
conference for Melbourne.
4. Evaluate formation of, or participation in,
a Global Knowledge Capitals Indicators
The OKC was successful in researching and developing
linkages with a number of other leading knowledge cities
including Manchester, Milan and Dublin. In addition,
relationships were established with the World Capital Institute,
a global think tank on knowledge cities based in Mexico;
Boston’s World Class Cities Partnership; and participation in
the PASCAL PURE benchmarking exercise. The City of
Melbourne’s sister cities relationships were also leveraged with
assistance from Business and International.
The OKC was successful in its bid to host the Knowledge
Page 19 of 21

20. 5
project.
5. Investigate use of ‘knowledge city’
linkages to create global education and
research collaboration projects.
6. Join, or investigate creation of a Global
Knowledge Capitals Network.
7. Investigate the value of conducting an
international 'Knowledge & Innovation
Study Mission' every 2 years.
Cities World Summit, which was held in Melbourne from 16-
19 November 2010.
The concept of conducting an international Knowledge &
Innovation Study Mission' every 2 years was investigated but
not found to be viable.
Objective Outcome Target Success Indicator
Develop and promote
Melbourne locally, nationally
and globally as “Australia’s
Knowledge Capital”
Increased awareness of higher education as a
key sector within the Victorian and national
economies.
Attractiveness of Melbourne as an
international destination for conferences,
academics and collaborative research.
Evidence of government, business and community acceptance
and utilisation of a sectoral approach to policy development,
funding and program action.
Number of knowledge-related conferences attracted to
Melbourne, and number of visiting or re-locating academics.
Action Achievements
1. Map the Melbourne Innovation System.
2. Investigate potential for Melbourne to
develop expertise and capability as a
research hub in emerging areas. (e.g.,
renewable energy and clean coal
technologies, funds management, green
building design, water resources
management).
3. Create a “Melbourne HE and Research
Capabilities Directory” in printed and
website formats.
The actions set out for this objective are misaligned with the
strategic outcomes as outlined in the strategic plan. The
activities undertaken, however, did satisfy the overall objective
and were reflective of the environment in which the OKC
operated.
The OKC operated in a period when the value and importance
of Higher Education and particularly the value of International
Education to the Victorian (largest export earner) economy was
at the forefront of media attention, much of it negative.
Subsequently much of the focus of activity was on international
Page 20 of 21

21. 6
4. Investigate potential to ‘re-run’ the
International Exhibition of cultural,
industrial and technological achievements
held at the Royal Exhibition Buildings in
1881.
education and related issues, which were paramount concerns
to the Vice Chancellors during this period and impacted on
Melbourne’s reputation as a global university city.
The Student Welcome Desk (SWD) project was established in
2009 to ensure that arriving students were provided with a
warm welcome and that the beginning of their Melbourne
education experience was a positive one. The SWD has
received much positive media attention throughout its two year
operation, particularly in India and has provided a collaborative
platform for stakeholders to ensure Melbourne remains a
destination of choice for international students.
The attractiveness of Melbourne as a destination for
international conferences was achieved with the OKC’s
successful bid to host the Knowledge Cities World Summit,
which was held in Melbourne from 16-19 November 2010,
attracting many international academics and researchers.
The concept of “re-running” the International Exhibition of
cultural, industrial and technological achievements held at the
Royal Exhibition Buildings in 1881 was considered beyond the
OKC’s resources.
Page 21 of 21