CONTEXT: 21st Century engineering demands competency in data retrieval, storage and management, where possible in real or near-real time. From design through to operation, maintenance and disassembly, it is critical for engineers to harness the power of data analytics, towards achieving crucial infrastructure and development targets within many of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. However, engineering curriculum is still deficient in teaching how to gather, analyse and interpret data, and communicate the resultant knowledge for decision-makers. This is beginning to be addressed within higher education as there are emergent examples of ‘living buildings’ where students access and work with real time or near-real time building data to develop such knowledge and skills. However, this remains a relative ‘novelty’ in Australia, in several niche learning environments. PURPOSE: This paper documents the authors’ journey in ‘Phase 1’, namely integrating real-time sensing features within a new building to address data information and knowledge literacy. Efforts have been guided by CDIO (Cognitive, Design, Implement and Operate) as a member of this community of practice and insights into sustainability transitions provided by Multi-Level Perspective MLP Theory. The paper presents a narrative on the resultant pathway experienced by the authors in enabling CDIO outcomes through establishing on-campus real-time sensing. The authors intend for the paper to share lessons-learned, to support other colleagues attempting to use living laboratories to equip students with knowledge and skills for 21st Century engineering. It will complement a future ‘Phase 2’ paper that evaluates the curriculum renewal efforts that engage with the living building once it is in operation. APPROACH: The authors reflect on navigating organisational and technical challenges to a successful outcome. Using language from MLP, this included: addressing factors within the ‘socio-technical regime’ through identifying the diversity of stakeholders and establishing partnerships early-on, and upfront consideration of the market availability of sensors and establishing best value for curriculum integration. It also included addressing the ‘socio-technical landscape’ through evaluating emergent end-user interests, spanning student learning and academic research interests, and obtaining broad support through involving CDIO and disciplines already engaged in data curation. RESULTS: The paper documents the outcomes in producing the “living laboratory”. Organisational outcomes included the established relationship between the School and Facilities Management, more than $150,000 of University funding (cash: $130,000 and Industry in-kind: $20,000). Technical outcomes included the integration of sensors that produce data suitable for use in various core and advanced engineering curricula, across several disciplines, with future-readiness for a graphical user interface. Pedagogical outcomes include the creation of a working group to embark on ‘Phase 2’ of the journey, to embed the living laboratory within coursework, research supervision, and evaluate the results. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes the benefits of using MLP Theory to guide the initiative, and the necessity of ‘Phase 2’ data to evaluate students’ experience of learning, and benefits towards a 21st Century curriculum.