Over more than a decade, projects in renewable energy systems, hydrogen infrastructures and integrated mobility solutions were developed and implemented together with industrial partners, infrastructure operators and public institutions. These activities covered the full range from research and system design to real-world operation. The objective in all cases was the integration of resource availability (Dargebot), demand (Bedarf) and demand coverage (Bedarfsdeckung) into functioning systems.
Initial Situation
Across these projects, the technical components required for system integration were available. Energy conversion, storage, transport and application systems could be combined and implemented. The expectation was that system operation would emerge from the connection of these elements. However, stable system operation did not occur.
Observation in the Living Lab
During project execution, a recurring pattern became visible. System-relevant decisions were distributed across multiple organizations with different mandates, regulatory frameworks and internal objectives. As a result, system-compatible solutions could be identified but not consistently implemented.
This pattern becomes evident in concrete project situations. In the case of the Zillertalbahn, hydrogen-based train systems were technically available and infrastructure conditions were established, yet implementation was repeatedly delayed due to conflicting positions between involved actors. In the Power2X context in Kufstein, technically feasible solutions were demonstrated but not realized, with reference to missing framework conditions, although similar implementations were carried out in other regions.
A comparable contradiction is observable at the infrastructure level. Hydrogen-based mobility systems are technically capable of operating across European corridors, while refueling infrastructure is simultaneously being reduced in Austria. This reduction does not result from technical limitations, but from a lack of alignment between energy providers, industrial actors and political institutions.
In all these cases, the system is technically operable, but not organizationally executable.
The observations presented here are grounded in a portfolio of real-world projects developed within the GEC Living Lab, including hydrogen mobility corridors, industrial energy systems and integrated infrastructure solutions.
Systemic Classification
The systemic foundations of this contribution are based on the model of resource management with the subsystems resource availability (Dargebot), demand (Bedarf) and demand coverage (Bedarfsdeckung), as well as the connecting flows of material, information and value.
Within this framework, system stability depends on the continuous alignment of these subsystems through their connecting flows. Material flows establish physical connectivity, information flows coordinate system states, and value flows enable economic viability. Disruptions in these relations lead to a loss of system functionality.
The observed discrepancy cannot be explained by technical limitations. It results from the structural properties of sectorally differentiated institutional systems. These include public administrations, industrial organizations, political bodies and research institutions, each operating within its own functional logic and decision structures.
This interpretation is consistent with findings in sociological and organizational theory. Functionally differentiated systems operate according to their own internal logic and cannot be directly coordinated across system boundaries (Luhmann, 1995). Organizational decision-making is similarly constrained by internal rules and objectives; organizations do not decide system-optimally, but according to their own decision premises (March & Simon, 1958). Institutional structures further reinforce this behavior through path dependencies, stabilizing existing arrangements even where alternative solutions are technically superior (Pierson, 2000).
As a result, actors from different sectors are structurally limited in aligning their objectives within a shared system logic. Cross-sectoral goal convergence does not occur, even when system integration is technically feasible. As shown in Figure GEC-FIG-01, system functionality depends on the continuous organization of resource availability, demand and demand coverage through material, information and value flows.
Relevance for Energy System Reconstruction
System formation follows a process of goal convergence in which resource availability, demand structures and demand satisfaction must be iteratively aligned across technical, economic and organizational dimensions. Stability is achieved when these relations converge into a coherent operational state. Where sectorally differentiated institutional systems dominate system operation, this convergence process is interrupted. Organizational separation overrides system logic, resulting in increasing structural complexity without corresponding operational stability. In order to establish functional system operation, it becomes necessary to create bounded operational environments in which system relations can be organized without being overridden by sectoral fragmentation.
The structural limitation leads to a fundamental shift in system development strategy.
Instead of attempting to achieve system integration directly within sectorally differentiated macro-systems, functional system operation must first be established within controlled micro-systems. These micro-systems enable the continuous organization of resource availability (Dargebot), demand (Bedarf) and demand coverage (Bedarfsdeckung), ensuring that material, information and value flows remain within a coherent system structure.
The GEC Living Lab represents such a real-world micro-system. It allows system functionality to be established under conditions in which institutional fragmentation does not override system logic. Within this environment, goal convergence processes can be realized operationally.
Once system functionality is established, validated and stabilized, system solutions can be transferred step by step into macro-system contexts. This transfer does not occur through structural enforcement, but through services, operational models and demonstrated system performance, becoming effective when institutional conditions allow for integration.
Conclusion
The current GEC Living Lab setup is the result of this development process. It represents an operational micro-system in which resource availability (Dargebot), demand (Bedarf) and demand coverage (Bedarfsdeckung) are organized within a coherent system framework.
By reducing institutional fragmentation, the Living Lab enables conditions under which system relations can stabilize and goal convergence processes can unfold. It provides a controlled environment in which integrated resource systems can be operated and empirically validated before being transferred into larger system contexts.
The GEC Living Lab is not only an operational environment, but represents a methodological framework for system development under real-world conditions. The transfer into macro-systems does not occur through structural integration, but through the provision of services, operational models and validated system solutions that can be adopted when institutional conditions allow.
Order statement:
Integrated resource systems fail not because of technological limitations, but because sectorally differentiated institutional systems are structurally unable to achieve cross-sectoral goal convergence. Functional system development therefore requires bounded operational environments in which this convergence can be realized.
A resource management system is defined by the continuous organization of resource availability (Dargebot), demand (Bedarf) and demand coverage (Bedarfsdeckung), ensuring that material, information and value flows remain within the system and that system relations are not disrupted.
References
Fleischhacker, Ernst (2026). Resource Management, Sustainability and Goal Convergence Processes. Green Energy Center Living Lab.
https://green-energy-center.com/ressourcenbewirtschaftung-nachhaltigkeit-und-ziel-konvergenzproz/
Fleischhacker, Ernst (2026). How Media Decouple System Innovations – The Zillertalbahn 2020+ Project as an Empirical Case Study. Green Energy Center Living Lab.
https://green-energy-center.com/how-media-decouple-system-innovations-the-zillertalbahn-2020-project-as-an-empirical-case-study/
Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
March, James G.; Simon, Herbert A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
Pierson, Paul (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review.
Green Energy Center (GEC) , Living Lab Project Development and Operation. https://green-energy-center.com/projects/, https://green-energy-center.com/news/ – Search: Living Lab
Nikolaus Fleischhacker et al. (2025). ‘Hydrogen between Hope and Hype: From Innsbruck to Athens’. https://youtu.be/GQwEXy_SJtE?si=8GxUc6-sKw3LVrKC
GEC Living Lab: The Basics, Entities and Projects. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvm1wAxuTkzwbvygvXj8QbqOdO1onWXEB&si=4mIG8vwc6PEBhzGn
Nikolaus Fleischhacker, (2022). FEN Research schließt mit West Forschungseinrichtung Lücke am GEC. https://youtu.be/BhFIAbd2IQk?si=mxgN0yf5stjAcIsQ
Ernst Fleischhacker, (2016). Gründung Green Energy Center Europe, Grundlagen, Ziele & Perspektiven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHcJcrH8ofg
Recommended Citation
Fleischhacker, Ernst (2026). The GEC Living Lab as an Operational Consequence of Ten Years of System Development. Green Energy Center Living Lab. GEC-SA-2026-01. https://green-energy-center.com/the-gec-living-lab-beyond-sector-coupling-and-conventional-energy-transition/