office of knowledge capital evaluation - council committee report - 12 april 2011

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

of 21

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.

of 21

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 BudgetProposed 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 1Agenda Item 5.2

Future Melbourne Committee12 April 2011

of 21

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;

of 21

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.

of 21

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.

of 21

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

of 21

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.

of 21

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.

of 21

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:

of 21

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.

of 21

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

of 21

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

of 21

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.

of 21

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.

of 21

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

of 21

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.

of 21

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

of 21

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.


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

of 21

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.


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

of 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.

of 21

office of knowledge capital evaluation - council committee report - 12 april 2011

Documents