Over time, we have noticed something interesting about incubation programs.
Most of them fail not because of lack of intent, but because they rely too heavily on enthusiasm and too little on structure.
Everyone starts with energy, ideas flow freely, activities multiply and slowly, fatigue sets in. Learning becomes uneven. Outcomes become hard to track. And eventually, the program loses momentum.
This is especially true in academic environments, where time, attention, and continuity are always under pressure.
So, we asked ourselves a simple question: What would it take to design an incubation program that does not depend on bursts of excitement, but survives through a system?
That question shaped the unique calling of this program.
The Living Lab for Urban Green is designed to function as a continuous process, not as a one-time batch or a fixed-duration intervention. It does not wait for everything to be perfectly defined before starting, nor does it shut down once a cycle ends.
At the heart of this approach is one simple idea: incubation, internships, and learning must run in parallel not sequentially.
In many programs, students are brought in only after ideas are “ready” or startups are “formed.”
Here, that sequence is reversed. The Living Lab stays active at multiple levels of maturity at the same time. Some ideas are just being explored. Some pilots are being tested. Some startups are stabilizing. Some learnings are being documented and fed back into the system.
This layered design allows participation at different depths, without forcing everyone into the same timeline.
Students may enter at various stages.
Some contribute to early problem discovery and mapping.
Others support pilot execution, coordination, or documentation.
Some work closely with startup teams, while others strengthen the incubation process itself.
Every role is real, visible, and connected to a live outcome.
Because the Living Lab does not pause between cycles, internships also become continuous rather than episodic.
Institutions are not forced to reinvent placements every semester. Meaningful work streams already exist and evolve steadily over time.
Another deliberate choice is restraint.
This program does not rely on large infrastructure, specialized labs, or permanent staffing. Its strength lies in real-world engagement, coordination, mentoring, and learning capture. These elements scale through participation and process, not through capital expenditure.
From an academic perspective, this structure offers reassurance.
The program is not fragile.
It does not collapse if one idea fails.
It does not depend on a single champion to survive.
Learning continues because the system itself keeps moving.
This is the unique calling of the Living Lab.
It treats incubation not as an event, but as a living process - one that allows ideas, people, and learning to grow at their own pace, while still remaining grounded and accountable.
