About the project

An overlooked mobility gap, not a new product pitch

This is a summary of field observations, technical considerations, and context gathered through direct engagement with mobility support in Kenya.

Introduction

Why we started here

This isn't simply about introducing a product. It's about recognizing a mobility gap that's easy to miss in Kenya, and across Africa: people who retain the ability to walk, but lack support adapted to real outdoor environments.

The scope of this work covers field observations and technical considerations, contextual reflections on mobility support, and a specific focus on partially ambulatory individuals — as part of a broader, long-term engagement identifying overlooked challenges and building practical, scalable solutions around them.

Background

Wheelchairs vs. walking support

The default assumption

Mobility support systems in many regions are primarily designed for individuals who are non-ambulatory. In practice, support frequently defaults to a wheelchair — even where maintaining walking ability may still be possible, and beneficial.

A complementary approach

Supporting walking isn't meant to replace existing mobility solutions — it's meant to complement them, for individuals who may benefit from assisted mobility while remaining ambulatory.

Physical benefits

Maintaining mobility can contribute to independence, physical activity, participation in community life, and everyday dignity and quality of life.

Social participation

For many individuals, remaining mobile is closely tied to maintaining social participation and daily independence — not just physical health.

Field observations in Kenya

What the ground actually looks like

Field assessments of mobility devices available in Kenya found that most rollators on the market appear primarily designed for indoor environments — small plastic wheels, lightweight indoor-oriented frames, and little tolerance for uneven terrain, rough surfaces, slopes, curbs, or the mixed urban and rural pathways people actually navigate day to day.

Direct engagement with local communities and stakeholders was central to identifying these practical gaps and validating what we observed in the field.

Close-up of a rollator's front wheel on rough outdoor ground
Design & environmental interaction

Indoors and outdoors are not the same test

Indoor vs. outdoor performance

A device that works adequately indoors won't necessarily perform under real outdoor conditions common across Kenya.

Local adaptation

Mobility systems need to adapt to local terrain, infrastructure, and daily usage conditions to actually function in practice.

Stability

Repeatedly, field observations pointed to stability under outdoor conditions as the primary usability factor.

Transportation practicality

Ease of use in buses and taxis was flagged as an important, very real-world consideration.

See how these observations shaped the rollator itself.

Explore the technical design →