Müller, J M (2026) Living labs: A systematic review of success parameters and outcomes. Buildings & Cities, 7(1), pp. 92-109. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Living labs (LLs) have emerged as a prominent vehicle for open, user-centric innovation; however, systematic evaluations of their effectiveness remain scarce. This assessment gap is addressed by conducting a systematic literature review that assesses the efficacy of LLs. Building on four types of LLs derived from the literature, the paper identifies a fifth type: network-driven LLs. A classification of evaluation frameworks is created: outcome-, impact-, effectiveness-and hybrid-oriented categories. The parameters for success are consolidated into five analytical dimensions: economic and business value; user-centricity; innovation; knowledge and learning; and societal impact. The study offers conceptual clarity and practical guidance: (1) it provides a differentiated view of evaluation frameworks that reflect the diverse ambitions of LLs; and (2) it classifies success parameters across multiple analytical dimensions. These insights contribute to a more structured and differentiated understanding of the performance of LLs and provide a foundation for developing more targeted evaluation strategies. Future research should therefore test these frameworks in real-world settings and develop adaptable tools to assess LL effectiveness more rigorously.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-creation; effectiveness; evaluation framework; impact; innovation; living labs; outcomes; performance assessment; urban living labs |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, strategy, co-creation, dimension, systematic literature review, performance assessment, evaluation |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, assessment methods, design process, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Human Resources, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here