Feasibility Study
Midterm Evaluation
Market Research
Programme Evaluation
Kenya Business
Social Enterprise
Development Finance
Corporate Research
Feasibility Studies and Midterm Evaluations in Kenya: How Evidence-Led Research Drives Better Business and Development Outcomes
Tobit Research Consulting | Market Research & Programme Evaluation Series | Reading time: ~18 minutes
What you will learn: Why feasibility studies and midterm evaluations are two of the most powerful — and most underused — research instruments in Kenya’s corporate and development landscape; the six core components every credible feasibility study must contain; what a rigorous midterm evaluation involves and how it differs from routine monitoring; what our own field-based evaluation work for the WaterStarters Programme in Kajiado County reveals about franchise model viability, market analysis in ASAL contexts, and financial sustainability; and how Tobit Research Consulting delivers the kind of evidence that corporations, NGOs, and development finance institutions in Kenya rely on to make high-stakes decisions.
Two of the most consequential moments in the lifecycle of any business venture or development programme in Kenya are also two of the moments most often approached without adequate research rigour. The first is before launch — when the question “Is this viable?” demands a systematic, evidence-based answer rather than a founder’s conviction or a funder’s optimism. The second is mid-implementation — when the question “Is this working, and how do we make it work better?” demands honest, independent measurement rather than internal reporting shaped by the pressures of accountability.
Feasibility studies and midterm evaluations are the research instruments designed specifically for these two moments. Done well, a feasibility study prevents resources from flowing into ventures whose market assumptions, financial structures, or operational contexts have never been rigorously tested. Done well, a midterm evaluation provides the empirical evidence needed to validate design assumptions, course-correct implementation failures, and build the investment case for scale. Done poorly — or skipped entirely — both become the missing evidence that explains why promising ideas become expensive failures.
At Tobit Research Consulting, we are a Nairobi-based research consultancy with a growing portfolio of corporate market research, programme evaluation, and data analysis services for organisations operating in Kenya and across East Africa. Our approach is grounded in methodological rigour, genuine field presence, and a deep understanding of Kenya’s institutional, regulatory, and community contexts. This guide draws directly on our completed evaluation work — including our midterm evaluation of the WaterStarters Programme, a pioneering franchise-based water enterprise implemented by Amref Health Africa and MegaGroup in Kajiado County — to show what serious feasibility and evaluation research looks like in practice.
1. Two Essential Research Instruments — and Why They Are Often Confused
Feasibility studies and midterm evaluations are distinct instruments serving different questions at different stages of a programme or business lifecycle. They are frequently confused, conflated, or substituted for one another — and the consequences of that confusion can be significant.
| Dimension |
Feasibility Study |
Midterm Evaluation |
| Primary question |
Should this be pursued? Is it viable? |
Is this working? What needs to change? |
| When conducted |
Before launch or investment commitment |
Partway through implementation — typically at 40–60% of programme duration |
| Core outputs |
Market analysis, financial model, risk assessment, go/no-go recommendation |
Progress against objectives, design validation, course-correction recommendations, scale-readiness assessment |
| Who uses it |
Founders, investors, banks, development finance institutions, county governments |
Programme managers, funders, investors, scaling partners, implementing NGOs |
| Research methods |
Market surveys, competitor analysis, financial modelling, regulatory review |
Household surveys, KIIs, FGDs, financial analysis, document review, site observation |
| Independence required? |
Ideally independent; at minimum transparent about assumptions |
Yes — independent evaluation is essential for credibility with funders and investors |
A business plan assumes viability — it describes how execution will happen. A feasibility study tests viability — it determines whether execution should happen. An internal monitoring report tracks implementation metrics — it tells you what is happening. A midterm evaluation assesses effectiveness — it tells you what is actually working, why, and what needs to change. The documents serve different decision-making needs. Substituting one for another at the wrong moment is like navigating with the wrong map.
2. Why the Stakes Have Never Been Higher for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Kenya
46.3%
of Kenyan small businesses close within their first year of operation
KIPPRA MSMEs Survey
70%
of Kenyan SMEs fail within three years — most without ever commissioning a feasibility study
Peer-reviewed Kenya SME research
4.7%
GDP growth in 2024 — a decelerating economy demanding higher investment rigour
KNBS Economic Survey 2025
Kenya’s business and development investment environment in 2025 and 2026 is simultaneously more dynamic and more demanding than at any previous period. Kenyan startups raised $638 million in 2024 — the highest in Africa — yet startup failure rates across the continent remain estimated at 85–89%. The Business Laws (Amendment) Act 2024 has triggered phased recapitalisation of Kenya’s banking sector — rising from KES 1 billion to KES 10 billion in minimum core capital by 2029 — meaning that commercial banks are under heightened pressure to demonstrate rigorous loan portfolio quality. Development finance institutions operating in Kenya are applying increasingly sophisticated due diligence frameworks before committing capital to new programmes. And government procurement agencies, county development funds, and donor organisations are all moving toward evidence requirements that were not standard practice five years ago.
In this environment, the organisations and businesses that are securing funding, attracting investment, and scaling successfully are those that have invested in quality research at the right moments. A credible feasibility study does not just describe a business idea — it makes the investment case. A credible midterm evaluation does not just report programme activities — it demonstrates impact, validates the model, and builds the evidence base for scale.
🇰🇪 Our Position in Kenya’s Research Landscape
Tobit Research Consulting occupies a specific and deliberate position in Kenya’s research ecosystem: we are a field-grounded, analytically rigorous consultancy that delivers the quality of evidence that corporate clients, development finance institutions, and implementing organisations need — at the cost and turnaround that the Kenyan market demands. We combine primary data collection capability (household surveys, KIIs, FGDs, structured observation), advanced data analysis (SPSS, Stata, NVivo), and professional report writing to deliver research that drives real decisions. Our WaterStarters Programme evaluation is a demonstration of what that looks like in practice.
3. The Six Components of a Credible Feasibility Study
A feasibility study that will withstand scrutiny from Kenyan banks, development finance institutions, county governments, or institutional investors contains six core components. Each one must be analytically substantive — not a paragraph of generic description but a section that presents evidence, applies it to the specific context of the proposed venture, and draws a defensible conclusion.
Component 1
Executive Summary
Written last, presented first. The executive summary must give a busy senior decision-maker everything they need to understand the project, its key analytical findings, and your recommendation — in two to three pages. For corporate clients and development finance institutions in Kenya, the executive summary is frequently the most-read section in the room. A weak executive summary — vague, overly enthusiastic, poorly structured — signals to reviewers that the analysis beneath it may be similarly undisciplined.
Component 2
Project Description and Scope
Precisely what is being proposed, at what scale, in what geographic context, for which target beneficiaries or customers, and with what key assumptions bounding the analysis. In a Kenyan context, this means specifying the county and sub-county, the regulatory environment, and any site-specific contextual factors — infrastructure, population characteristics, competitive landscape — that materially shape the viability analysis. “Outside of scope” statements matter as much as scope inclusions: they demonstrate analytical control and prevent reviewers from faulting you for gaps you deliberately excluded.
Component 3
Market Feasibility Analysis
The core demand-side question: is there sufficient, accessible, and sustainable market for what you are proposing? This section must move from macro-level context data (national or sector-level statistics) through market sizing logic (TAM → SAM → realistically achievable market share) to primary demand validation from actual potential customers or beneficiaries in your specific target area. For social enterprise or development programme contexts in Kenya, this also includes analysis of the informal market, willingness-to-pay research, and competitive alternatives.
Component 4
Technical and Operational Feasibility
Can the proposed venture actually be delivered in the specific operating environment — with its infrastructure conditions, supply chain realities, regulatory requirements, and available human capital? This section must be honest about Kenya-specific constraints that differ significantly from generic technical assumptions: electricity reliability, road quality, county-specific licensing processes, and skills availability outside major urban centres. Infrastructure assumptions imported from Nairobi that are then applied to ASAL counties like Kajiado or Turkana represent one of the most reliable sources of feasibility study failure in Kenya.
Component 5
Financial Feasibility Analysis
The investment-return question: will this generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, service any debt, and deliver a return commensurate with the risk? This requires disaggregated CAPEX and OPEX estimation, revenue projections built from the market analysis (not from desired income targets), break-even analysis expressed in operationally meaningful terms, 24-month cash flow forecasts, ROI and payback period calculations, and sensitivity analysis under conservative, base, and optimistic scenarios. In Kenya’s current elevated-interest-rate environment, financial models that do not account for financing costs, inflationary pressure on OPEX, and slower-than-projected market penetration will not be credible.
Component 6
Risk Assessment and Mitigation
Every risk worth naming is worth assessing, rating, and mitigating specifically. A risk section that identifies no significant risks does not reassure experienced reviewers — it concerns them. The goal is to demonstrate that the project team understands the full risk landscape (market, financial, operational, regulatory, environmental, political) and has credible, specific strategies for managing the risks that matter most. Reviewers who fund ventures in Kenya’s ASAL counties know that seasonal variability, infrastructure fragility, and governance risks in franchise or cooperative models are not hypothetical — and they will be looking for evidence that you know this too.
4. Market Feasibility in Kenya: Moving Beyond National Statistics
The most common failure pattern in Kenyan feasibility studies is the macro-to-market-share leap: citing a large national statistic (98% of businesses are SMEs; 40 million Kenyans lack access to X; Kenya’s FMCG market is worth KES Y billion) and then projecting a market share with no connecting analytical logic. Experienced reviewers — at KDC, IFC, development banks, or major commercial banks — see through this immediately, and it destroys the credibility of the rest of the document.
Credible market feasibility in Kenya requires a layered approach: national and sector-level context from authoritative sources (KNBS, KIPPRA, CBK, sector regulatory bodies, county Integrated Development Plans); market sizing logic that narrows from total addressable market to the segment your specific model can actually serve; primary research conducted with real potential customers or beneficiaries in your specific target geography; and competitive analysis that names actual alternatives — including informal markets — rather than generic market categories.
📋 What Good Market Analysis Looks Like in the WaterStarters Context
In Kajiado County, where the WaterStarters model operates, a credible market analysis cannot rely on national water access statistics. Only 66% of Kajiado’s population uses improved water sources (compared to 95% nationally), and the county receives an average of just 500mm annual rainfall in a predominantly ASAL environment. The relevant demand question is not national coverage — it is: at the community level, what is the willingness and ability of households and livestock owners to pay for metered water at a franchise kiosk? Our evaluation found that WaterStarters kiosk water at KES 5 per 20-litre jerrican was perceived as affordable by over 80% of surveyed households, and that the model had achieved 59% market share across its five pilot sites — reaching as high as 90% in Naserian. That is the kind of site-specific, primary-data-grounded market evidence that makes a financial model credible.
The willingness-to-pay research imperative: For any consumer-facing business or social enterprise in Kenya, primary willingness-to-pay research is not optional — it is the foundation on which your revenue projections rest. We conduct structured surveys and FGDs specifically designed to elicit realistic willingness-to-pay data across different customer segments, testing price sensitivity, seasonal variation in purchasing power, and the competitive alternatives that households or businesses will revert to when budgets are constrained.
5. Financial Feasibility: Projections, Break-Even, and the Viability Question
The financial feasibility section answers the most fundamental question any Kenyan bank, investor, or development finance institution asks: does this model generate enough revenue to cover its costs, service its financing obligations, and sustain itself beyond the initial funding period? For social enterprises — where the model must simultaneously serve low-income communities and remain financially viable — this question is particularly complex and particularly important to answer rigorously.
In our WaterStarters evaluation, the financial analysis component examined each franchisee’s revenue streams, cost structure, loan repayment capacity, and overall return on investment across the five pilot sites. This required extracting data from programme documents and franchisee financial records, conducting break-even analysis to determine the revenue thresholds required for sustainability, calculating ROI and Net Present Value (NPV), and performing cash flow and revenue trend analysis. The hybrid financing model — whereby franchisees contribute 15% of capital upfront, with WaterStarters providing 42.5% as grant and 42.5% as a recoverable loan at 10% interest on a reducing balance — created a specific set of financial viability questions that our analysis was designed to answer.
Financial Analysis Component
What the Financial Feasibility Analysis Must Include
Capital expenditure estimation disaggregated by cost category (construction, equipment, licences, contingency); operating cost projections including staff, energy, maintenance, and franchise fees; revenue projections built from verified price points and realistic volume estimates; break-even analysis expressed in units or transactions per month rather than just revenue figures; 24-month cash flow forecast identifying liquidity pressure periods; ROI and payback period calculation from the perspective of each stakeholder (franchisee, investor, grant funder); sensitivity analysis testing conservative and pessimistic scenarios; and an honest assessment of the conditions under which the financial model fails.
The sensitivity analysis test: A financial model that shows viability only under optimistic assumptions is not a viable financial model — it is a best-case scenario. Our financial analysis for the WaterStarters model explicitly tested how franchisee viability changed under varying revenue assumptions, seasonal fluctuations, different loan-to-grant ratios, and alternative CAPEX ceilings. The concept of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) — what is the minimum capital expenditure required to deliver a viable water business — became one of the evaluation’s most actionable outputs for the programme’s scale-up strategy.
6. What Is a Midterm Evaluation — and What Makes One Rigorous?
A midterm evaluation (MTE) is an independent, structured assessment of a programme or business model conducted at an intermediate point in its implementation cycle — typically when 40–60% of the planned duration has elapsed. Its purpose is not to produce a final verdict on success or failure but to generate the empirical evidence needed for three things: validating or challenging the assumptions embedded in the original programme design, identifying what is working well and what is not, and providing actionable, evidence-based recommendations that inform strategic course corrections before the programme concludes.
What distinguishes a rigorous midterm evaluation from routine monitoring and reporting is independence, methodological depth, and analytical honesty. An implementing organisation’s own programme team can produce monitoring data — but they cannot independently evaluate whether the programme theory of change is holding, whether the financial model is genuinely viable, or whether the intervention is producing the social outcomes it was designed to produce. That requires an external team with research methodology expertise, field data collection capacity, and the professional independence to report what the evidence shows, even when findings are inconvenient.
Rigorous MTE Element 1
Mixed-Methods Design with Triangulation
A credible midterm evaluation integrates quantitative data (household surveys, financial records, operational metrics) with qualitative evidence (KIIs, FGDs, structured observation) and triangulates across sources to validate conclusions. Quantitative data tells you what is happening at scale; qualitative data tells you why, and captures the nuance of lived experience that surveys cannot reach. Our WaterStarters evaluation combined a 1,209-household survey across five sites with 15 KIIs and 20 FGDs — plus structured site observation, document review, and financial analysis — to produce a comprehensive, triangulated evidence base.
Rigorous MTE Element 2
Baseline Comparison Where Available
A midterm evaluation generates its most valuable insights when it can compare current data against a baseline — the measurement of key indicators before the programme began. Comparison against baseline enables the evaluation to assess the magnitude of change over time, identify which sites or population groups are seeing the most significant improvements, and flag areas where expected progress has not materialised. In the WaterStarters evaluation, comparison of mid-term household survey data against the WaterStarters Baseline Survey Report enabled direct assessment of changes in water access, water quality perceptions, time savings, and health outcomes across the five sites.
Rigorous MTE Element 3
Honest Treatment of Limitations
A rigorous evaluation declares its methodological limitations clearly and explains how they affect the interpretation of findings. The WaterStarters MTE acknowledged constraints including: the absence of a control group (limiting causal attribution), potential social desirability bias in communities where Amref staff were well-known, cross-site variability in operational duration, and limited availability of detailed franchisee financial data. Declaring these limitations does not weaken the evaluation — it demonstrates the analytical integrity that makes findings trustworthy to the funders, investors, and programme managers who use them.
Rigorous MTE Element 4
Structured Evaluation Questions Across Multiple Domains
A rigorous MTE is organised around specific evaluation questions — not simply a list of outputs to verify. The WaterStarters evaluation was structured around six objectives covering franchise model effectiveness, franchisee financial performance, business model sustainability, social and environmental impact, health and demand creation performance, and scaling potential. Each domain generated a set of specific learning questions — from “Are franchisees willing and financially able to co-invest?” to “What is the minimum viable product that makes a water franchise economically viable?” — that shaped the data collection instruments and analysis approach.
7. From Our Portfolio: The WaterStarters Programme Midterm Evaluation
📁 Tobit Research Consulting — Field Portfolio
WaterStarters Programme Midterm Evaluation, Kajiado County — April/May 2025
Client: Amref Health Africa in Kenya & MegaGroup | Programme: WaterStarters — franchise-based community water enterprise | Locations: Kumpa, Orinie, Naserian, Kima, and Kibiko sub-counties, Kajiado County | Evaluation design: Mixed-methods descriptive cross-sectional study | Sample: 1,209 households + 15 KIIs + 20 FGDs across five sites | Analysis tools: SPSS v27 (quantitative), NVivo (qualitative), financial modelling
The WaterStarters Programme is a pioneering social enterprise jointly established by Amref Health Africa and MegaGroup to address persistent water scarcity in Kenya’s water-stressed ASAL regions. Launched in 2022, the programme deploys a franchise-based delivery model in which local franchisees — private water operators or community-based organisations — co-invest in and take full operational responsibility for community water supply schemes. The hybrid financing mechanism is a hallmark of the model: franchisees contribute a minimum of 15% of capital upfront, with WaterStarters providing 42.5% as grant and 42.5% as a four-year recoverable loan at 10% interest on a reducing balance basis. The long-term vision is to build a revolving fund capable of sustaining the model’s scale to 600 water schemes and 1.5 million Kenyans by 2030.
By April 2025, five sites had been completed and commissioned — Kumpa, Orinie, Naserian, Kima, and Kibiko — providing the pilot cohort for the midterm evaluation. Given the model’s novelty (particularly its hybrid financing mechanism), the evaluation was designed to validate key design assumptions and generate empirical evidence to inform strategic refinement and future scale decisions. Our team conducted the evaluation using a rigorous mixed-methods design — combining a cluster-randomised household survey of 1,209 respondents, 15 key informant interviews, and 20 focus group discussions across all five sites, alongside financial analysis of franchisee records and structured site observations.
📄
WaterStarters Programme Midterm Evaluation Report — Full Report
Conducted by Tobit Research Consulting | Amref Health Africa & MegaGroup | April/May 2025
Download Report →
8. What the Evidence Said: Key Findings from Kajiado
The WaterStarters evaluation produced findings across six objective areas. The highlights below illustrate the kind of evidence that credible programme evaluation generates — and why it matters for business model validation, investment decision-making, and scale strategy.
Market Penetration and Demand Validation
Across all five sites, WaterStarters franchisee water points became the dominant source of drinking water, serving an average of 59% of households. The model’s market penetration was particularly strong in Naserian (90%) and Orinie (79%) — sites with limited competitive alternatives. In Kumpa and Kima, WaterStarters boreholes surpassed pre-existing boreholes to capture the largest market share. These figures provide direct validation of a critical feasibility assumption: that a metered, franchise-operated water kiosk model can command primary market position in ASAL communities within two to three years of launch.
“At first, they thought we were just another NGO coming to build and disappear. But when they saw water flowing and bills being paid fairly, they came on board.”
— Key Informant Interview, WaterStarters Project Staff
Affordability and Willingness to Pay
The evaluation found that WaterStarters kiosk pricing at KES 5 per 20-litre jerrican was perceived as affordable by over 80% of users — and explicitly more affordable than competing sources including other boreholes (averaging KES 7 per jerrican), vendor deliveries (KES 20–60 per jerrican by donkey cart), and bowser deliveries (KES 2,000–6,500 per 5,000 litres). This price positioning data is a direct input to the financial feasibility model — it validates the pricing assumption on which revenue projections rest. However, the evaluation also found that 27% of households across all sites experienced periods when they could not afford water, rising to 40% in Orinie and 36% in Kumpa — a finding that has direct implications for revenue projection conservatism and the need for tiered pricing or social protection mechanisms.
Operational Reliability and System Downtime
A key franchise viability assumption was that systems could maintain a maximum 72-hour downtime threshold. The evidence strongly supported this: among the 575 households primarily using WaterStarters water points, 88% reported no mechanical breakdown in the past year, and among those who did experience a breakdown, the average resolution time was 2.74 days. Real-time monitoring dashboards, prepaid metering systems, and responsive franchisee management were all identified as enablers of this operational performance.
95%
of WaterStarters users expressed satisfaction with water management across all five sites
WaterStarters MTE Household Survey, 2025
62%
of households reporting improved water availability had initiated or expanded income-generating activities
WaterStarters MTE Household Survey, 2025
97.9%
of WaterStarters households believe systems will continue operating after Amref’s direct support ends
WaterStarters MTE Household Survey, 2025
Livelihood and Social Impact
Of the 1,136 households reporting improved water availability, 62% had initiated or expanded income-generating activities — including small-scale farming, kitchen gardening, poultry rearing, water vending, and in pastoralist areas, herd expansion enabled by consistent water access. School enrolment at Kumpa Holy Mothers Primary School increased from approximately 600 to over 950 pupils after WaterStarters connectivity — a transformation the head teacher attributed directly to improved water availability at school and in households. These livelihood and educational impact findings are precisely the evidence that development finance institutions and impact investors look for when assessing scale potential.
Franchise Model and Financial Sustainability
The evaluation examined the financial performance of franchisees across all five sites, including cost structures, revenue streams, loan repayment progress, and CAPEX recovery trajectories. The hybrid financing model was validated as a viable design principle — the financial stake created by the 15% franchisee contribution was consistently linked by stakeholders to higher accountability and performance motivation.
“We like this co-financing idea — when someone puts in their own money, they’re motivated to recover it and possibly make a profit. That creates personal responsibility to keep the service running efficiently and reliably.”
— Key Informant Interview, County Government Official, Kajiado
However, the evaluation also surfaced critical questions for the model’s refinement: the appropriateness of the loan-to-grant ratio across sites with different revenue generation capacities; the challenge of franchisee financial literacy and governance capacity; the seasonality of livestock watering revenue as a key driver of variation in monthly income across sites; and the need for clear guidance on the Minimum Viable Product — the optimal CAPEX ceiling for a water franchise to be financially viable across different community typologies. These findings directly inform the programme’s scale-up investment strategy and are precisely the kind of evidence that the model’s commercial investors need to see before committing capital at scale.
9. From Evaluation to Scaling Decisions: Using Evidence to Invest at the Right Moment
One of the most important — and most underappreciated — uses of a credible midterm evaluation is to inform the timing and conditions of scaling decisions. The WaterStarters evaluation was explicitly designed to address the scaling potential domain: Do the investments pay off, and what is the minimum CapEx needed to scale the model in the most economically viable manner? Is the programme able to attract commercial investors? What are the key characteristics of successful sites that should guide scaling decisions?
These are not questions that internal monitoring can answer. They require independent analysis of financial performance data across multiple sites, comparative assessment of what distinguishes high-performing sites from lower-performing ones, and honest evaluation of whether the model’s design assumptions are holding at pilot scale before capital is committed at the scale of dozens or hundreds of sites.
Scaling Evidence Framework
What Evidence Investors and Development Finance Institutions Need Before Scaling
Demonstrated market penetration and willingness-to-pay validation across diverse community typologies; financial model performance data showing whether franchisees are meeting revenue projections and loan repayment obligations; evidence of operational system reliability under real-world field conditions; social impact evidence demonstrating that the model is producing its intended development outcomes; identification of the conditions under which the model succeeds and fails — so that scale can be concentrated in favourable contexts; and honest assessment of design elements that require modification before scale is viable.
The WaterStarters midterm evaluation generated evidence across all of these dimensions. For a programme targeting 600 water schemes and 1.5 million beneficiaries by 2030, the MTE provides the empirical foundation for the commercial investment case — demonstrating not just that the model works in isolated cases, but what it needs to work at scale, and what conditions are required for investors committing capital at the 42.5% co-financing level to achieve the returns they are projecting.
10. The Mistakes That Make Both Documents Fail
✅ What Credible Research Delivers
- Market findings grounded in primary data from actual target beneficiaries or customers
- Financial projections built from the demand evidence upward — not backward from desired outcomes
- Site-specific analysis that accounts for Kenya’s geographic, infrastructural, and institutional diversity
- Honest treatment of limitations that allows decision-makers to calibrate their confidence appropriately
- Independent evaluation free from implementation pressure to report positive outcomes
- Triangulated evidence — quantitative, qualitative, and financial — not a single-method snapshot
- Actionable recommendations tied to specific evidence, not generic best-practice advice
- Analysis calibrated to the specific audience — commercial investors, DFIs, government, NGOs
❌ What Weak Research Produces
- National-level statistics cited as proxies for community-level demand evidence
- Single optimistic financial scenario with no sensitivity analysis or conservative projections
- Technical and operational assumptions imported from Nairobi contexts and applied to ASAL counties
- Risk sections that identify no significant risks — or list risks with no specific mitigations
- Evaluations conducted by implementing organisations assessing their own programme outcomes
- Reports that describe what the programme did — but not whether it worked or why
- Recommendations so generic they could apply to any programme in any country
- A business plan presented where a feasibility study was required — or vice versa
The independence imperative in evaluation: A midterm evaluation conducted by the implementing organisation’s own team is not an independent evaluation — regardless of how rigorously it is designed. Funders, development finance institutions, and commercial investors increasingly require third-party evaluation precisely because internal reporting is structurally incapable of the analytical independence that credible evaluation demands. The value of external evaluation is not just methodological expertise — it is the credibility that comes from having no stake in the findings.
11. How Tobit Research Consulting Can Help Your Organisation
Tobit Research Consulting is a Nairobi-based market research and evaluation consultancy serving corporate clients, development organisations, NGOs, social enterprises, and academic institutions across Kenya and East Africa. Our WaterStarters Programme evaluation is one demonstration of the standard of work we bring to every engagement: field-grounded, methodologically rigorous, analytically independent, and oriented toward the evidence that real decisions require.
We work at both ends of the programme lifecycle — conducting the feasibility research that validates business models and investment cases before launch, and delivering the independent evaluations that course-correct programmes already in flight and build the evidence base for scale. Whether you are a corporate entering a new market, a development finance institution assessing a portfolio investment, an NGO preparing to pitch for scaling capital, or a social enterprise validating its franchise model, we bring the research capability you need.
Market Research and Programme Evaluation Services — Nairobi, Kenya
Tobit Research Consulting delivers research that drives decisions. Our corporate and development research services include:
- Feasibility study research, analysis, and writing — all six core components
- Market analysis with primary data collection: household surveys, KIIs, FGDs, observation
- Willingness-to-pay and demand validation research across Kenyan communities
- Competitor analysis and market sizing for Kenya and East Africa
- Technical and operational feasibility assessment for Kenya-specific contexts
- Financial modelling: CAPEX, OPEX, revenue projections, cash flow, break-even, ROI, NPV
- Sensitivity analysis and financial scenario planning
- Midterm and end-line programme evaluations — independent, mixed-methods, field-based
- Social and economic impact assessments for development programmes
- Franchise model viability and business model evaluation
- SPSS, Stata, R, and NVivo data analysis and interpretation
- Baseline and follow-up survey design and implementation
- Theory of change development and M&E framework design
- Investor-ready research reports for development finance applications
We combine the rigour of academic research methodology with the practical field capability that Kenya’s diverse operating contexts demand. If your organisation needs research that moves at the pace of real decisions — and that can stand scrutiny from the most demanding reviewers — we would welcome the conversation.
Request a Research Consultation →
📍 Bruce House, 4th Floor, Nairobi CBD, Kenya | Tel: +254 728 430 728 | tobitresearchconsulting.com
This article is part of Tobit Research Consulting’s Market Research and Programme Evaluation Series. The WaterStarters Programme evaluation data cited throughout this article is drawn from the Midterm Evaluation Report prepared by Tobit Research Consulting for Amref Health Africa in Kenya and MegaGroup (April/May 2025). Other sources informing this article include: KNBS Economic Survey 2025; KIPPRA Nurturing Small Businesses in Kenya; KDHS 2022; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme reports; the World Bank Kenya Enterprise Survey 2025; the 2022 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey; peer-reviewed research on SME critical success factors in Kenya; the US State Department 2024 Investment Climate Statement for Kenya; Chambers and Partners Banking & Finance Kenya 2025 guide; PwC Kenya analysis of the Business Laws (Amendment) Act 2024; and DataReportal Digital 2025 Kenya.
