Homepage

[Research Contribution] Lessons Learned from the Living Lab Development Process Around the World

17 October, 2025

Keywords: Living Lab Development, Smart City

Living Labs have undergone a process of formation and development in recent decades. Various definitions, approaches, and development methods for Living Labs exist across the continents, all aimed at addressing urban challenges and improving citizens’ quality of life. However, to date, no comprehensive study has synthesized the process of developing Living Labs across different continents. This study by researchers from the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH) explores these processes to capture key lessons learned from around the world.

The Formation and Development of Living Labs

In the Americas

The term “Living Lab” was first introduced in 1995 by Professor William Mitchell of the MIT Media Lab, School of Architecture and Planning, to describe a research environment that simulates real-life settings. In this environment, people live and interact as they would in a typical home, allowing for the observation and analysis of behavior in a naturalistic context.

According to Schuurman et al. (2013), this model was further developed in the “Smart Home” research by Markopoulos & Rauterberger (2000), which aimed to explore how computing technology could be harmoniously integrated into human life. Thus, in their initial phase, Living Labs in the Americas were primarily experimental research spaces that simulated real living environments to test technology in daily life—reflecting a more “Americanized” approach focused on behavioral research and technology integration.

In Europe

The Living Lab concept was significantly advanced in Europe, becoming a core component of the open innovation ecosystem. According to ENoLL (2019), the three precursors to this model were: (1) collaborative and participatory design in Scandinavia (1960–1970), (2) social experiments with information technology (1980), and (3) Digital City projects (1990), reflecting the linkage between technology, innovation, and urban spaces.

By the early 2000s, the Living Lab was formally established in Europe through the “Intelcities – Intelligent Cities” project (2002–2005), which utilized the quadruple helix model of innovation (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). This model connects businesses, government, academia, and the community in the co-creation and testing of new technologies. This approach helped EU cities overcome institutional barriers, enhance global competitiveness, and promote sustainable urban development.

Unlike the American approach, European Living Labs place users at the center, allowing them to engage in co-creation within their everyday environments rather than in simulated settings. European Living Labs are often long-term, community-based, and focused on ICT services and continuous interaction with urban users.

According to ENoLL (2019), Living Labs combine vertical domains (such as health, climate, education) with horizontal elements (digitalization, multi-stakeholder governance) to strengthen the open innovation ecosystem, address societal challenges, and promote the Digital Single Market.

The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), established in 2010 in Brussels, defines a Living Lab as a “user-centric, open innovation ecosystem based on a systematic co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings.” To date, nearly 400 Living Labs have been recognized globally, with 170 core units directly involved in European innovation policy (Keith & Headlam, 2017). Besides European countries, Brazil, Canada, and the United States also participate in this network. In Europe, a Living Lab is also sometimes referred to as an Urban Lab or City Lab.

In Asia

The Living Lab concept spread to Asia in the late 1990s and early 2000s, influenced by the European model but developing unique characteristics suited to the region’s urban, cultural, and institutional contexts. In the last decade, Asian Living Labs have grown rapidly, reflecting the need for urban innovation and experimentation amidst rapid urbanization, environmental degradation, and social inequality.

Living Labs in this region are characterized by the application of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), Big Data analytics, and the Internet of Things (IoT). These technologies facilitate the development, testing, and evaluation of solutions in real-world settings while collecting direct feedback from users and stakeholders.

Synthesizing the Living Lab Development Process Across Continents

In the Americas and Europe

Based on a synthesis of experiences from leading Living Lab projects in Europe and guidelines from reputable organizations such as ENoLL (2020), the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (Kris & Elle, 2017), UNaLab (Habibipour et al., 2020), and Eindhoven University of Technology (H, Valkenburg & Blok, 2016), the research team has developed a generalized process for Living Lab development—from problem identification and ideation to the adjustment and scaling phases (Figure 1).

(1) Problem and Idea Identification A Living Lab typically originates from a real-world problem or an innovative idea aimed at solving a specific community challenge. This initial step helps define the project’s scope and objectives.

(2) Quadruple Helix Collaboration (4P – Public-Private-People-Partnership) The 4P collaboration is the foundation of every Living Lab, ensuring the mobilization of resources from the public, private, academic, and community sectors. According to Leminen (2012), Living Lab models can be classified into four types: Utilizer-driven, Enabler-driven, Provider-driven, and User-driven, depending on the lead stakeholder and scope of impact.

(3) Vision and Target Group Definition Stakeholders must agree on a common vision and the target audience for the project through workshops or seminars. A multidisciplinary vision fosters collaboration and strengthens commitment among participants.

(4) Resource Identification This includes both human and financial resources. At this stage, the coordinating entity identifies partners who can provide expertise, policy support, community connections, and funding to ensure the project’s feasibility (Kris & Elle, 2017).

(5) Solution or Product Proposal After defining the vision and resources, the project team designs an operational model, product, or pilot service. Experts within the network collaborate based on their specialties to ensure feasibility and effective implementation.

(6) Co-creation This is the core feature of a Living Lab. Users, experts, businesses, and government officials jointly develop and test solutions in a real-world environment, ensuring high relevance and applicability.

(7) Operational and Sustainability Planning A Living Lab must be designed for sustainable operation beyond the pilot phase. This includes ensuring genuine user adoption of the solution, maintaining stable funding after initial grants expire, and complying with relevant legal and policy regulations.

(8) Project Operation The duration and scale of operation may vary depending on the Living Lab type.

Utilizer-driven labs focus on corporate R&D and are often short-term.
Enabler-driven labs aim for local development and can be long-term.
Provider-driven labs are managed by research or consulting organizations.
User-driven labs emerge from proactive communities, initiated and sustained by citizens over the long term. Some projects establish dedicated organizations (associations, companies, non-profits) to monitor and coordinate the entire process.

(9) Project Evaluation Evaluation is a crucial stage to determine the extent to which objectives have been met. Criteria include the relevance of the idea, technical effectiveness, accessibility, and user satisfaction.

(10) Extracting Lessons Learned Living Labs in Europe regularly summarize successes and failures to share within the ENoLL network or with urban research institutes. These reports and guides help enhance the capabilities of future projects (ENoLL, 2020; Habibipour et al., 2020).

(11) Model Scaling and Replication Depending on the type, a Living Lab can be scaled in two ways:

Commercializing the product/service (for Utilizer-driven and Provider-driven labs).
Expanding the application to similar regions or communities (for Enabler-driven and User-driven labs).

In Asia

The research team synthesizes the Living Lab development process in Asia as follows:

(1) Problem Identification: Similar to Living Labs in Europe and the Americas, projects in Asia are proposed to address specific issues in urban, community, or business contexts.

(2) Partner Engagement: Unlike the European and American models, stakeholder engagement in Asian Living Labs primarily revolves around public-private partnerships (PPP) for innovation projects, rather than direct engagement with citizens—the end-users. With the exception of user-driven labs developed with a “bottom-up” approach, most other projects lack citizen co-creation during implementation. Instead, there is a strong connection among the involved partners.

(3) Vision and Target Group Definition: This must be agreed upon by all stakeholders before the project begins to ensure sustainability and partner commitment. When all parties recognize mutual benefits and strategic alignment, they have a basis for long-term collaboration.

(4) Priority Goal Identification: Based on the established vision and target groups, organizers identify priority goals or issues to be addressed at different stages of the Living Lab’s development.

(5) Solution/Product Proposal: This typically originates from research groups or enterprises with highly feasible solutions that have practical application potential.

(6) Action Planning and Project Operation: Most Living Lab projects in Asia do not explicitly or prominently feature financial planning as a key factor for sustainability. Only a few projects mention a business plan in their action plan before operation.

(7) Project Evaluation and Adjustment: This step is now considered particularly important in current Asian Living Lab projects, ensuring flexibility and improved project effectiveness during implementation.

Living Labs in the Americas differ from those in other continents by emphasizing entrepreneurship, public-private partnerships, a focus on technology, scalability, and the legal environment. These differences reflect the unique strengths and challenges of the United States and provide a context for understanding the development and implementation of Living Labs in the country.

Authors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trinh Tu Anh, Ph.D. Candidate Pham Nguyen Hoai, Ph.D. Candidate Do Le Phuc Tam – University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City

This article is part of the series spreading research and applied knowledge from UEH with the message “Research Contribution For All.” UEH cordially invites readers to look forward to the next UEH Research Insights newsletter.

News, photos: Authors, UEH Department of Communications and Partnerships

Chân Trang (1)