At GroundsFest this year, we were reminded how prominent robotic mowing has become. For schools, estates and sports facilities, there is a practical reason to take a closer look: the time a grounds team could put back into the rest of the site.

Mowing can take a sizeable, recurring place in the working week. Meanwhile, there are playing surfaces to prepare, planting to look after, repairs to make and seasonal jobs waiting for attention.

A useful robotic mowing proposal should show which hours it could release, how the grass would be maintained and what running the equipment would involve. Here is how we would assess it.

Why staffing pressure matters

There is evidence behind the concern about finding experienced grounds staff. The Grounds Management Association's workforce findings highlight recruitment and retention difficulties, an ageing workforce and shortages of experienced staff within UK grounds management.

That makes the way existing staff spend their time worth examining. A school might use hours released from mowing to improve presentation around entrances. A sports facility might have more time for pitch preparation. An estate team might finally get to the jobs that keep moving down the list.

Those priorities should help shape the proposal from the start.

Start with one area and its weekly workload

Choose an area that takes regular mowing time and record the work involved over a few representative weeks. Count staff hours: two people working for two hours is four staff hours.

Include loading, unloading and journeys made specifically to mow that area. If the team would still visit for other work, keep that travel in the remaining workload.

Then work out what would still need doing with a robot in place. Allow for edges and awkward corners, checking the area, cleaning and blade changes, monitoring the machine and responding when help is needed. Include any litter or debris checks your site requires.

This gives you a useful comparison between the current workload and the proposed arrangement.

Where Kress technology makes a practical difference

Positioning without perimeter wire. Kress RTKⁿ uses satellite positioning supported by its own correction network. Its network-based approach avoids a dedicated positioning antenna on your property as well as a buried boundary wire. Network coverage and reception across the actual working area still need checking.

Planned routes and separate mowing areas. Kress RTKⁿ technology supports systematic cutting and movement between mapped areas. For a site with several lawns, look at how those areas connect, how long travel takes and whether the routes work around the site's daily use. The proposed machine must have enough working time to maintain the required standard.

Options for more demanding ground. Ian regularly demonstrates Kress robotic mowers on sloping lawns and banks. Many models have four-wheel drive and an articulated body designed to follow uneven terrain. That opens up an assessment beyond the flat, open lawn people may picture when they think of a robot mower.

Its features should be matched to the ground, access and workload; the right choice for an awkward bank may differ from the right choice for a large open playing field.

Put a value on the hours released

Consider this illustrative planning example, using assumed figures:

In this example of switching to robotics, six staff hours of weekly mowing becomes 1.5 hours of checks, finishing and routine care, leaving 4.5 hours available for other work.

Across an assumed 30-week mowing season, that would release 135 staff hours. Replace these assumptions with your own measured workload and a realistic allowance for the proposed setup.

If the same employees work the same paid hours, those 135 hours give you capacity to use elsewhere. A reduction in overtime or outsourced mowing could also reduce spending, where those costs are actually avoided.

For the financial comparison, include the robot's purchase cost spread over the period you expect to use it, or its finance payments. Add installation and mapping, electricity, blades, servicing, any applicable connectivity or support charges, and the staff time that remains. Compare both arrangements over the same period and turf area.

What the published savings examples tell us

In its 2026 golf brochure, Kress includes a statement from Jeff Miller at Santaluz Golf Club in California reporting around 2,000 hours saved annually and a potential value of up to US$50,000.

Ask what any savings figure includes: operator time, fuel, maintenance, equipment costs and the work still carried out by people. A clear breakdown makes the proposal much easier to judge.

Make the demonstration answer the working questions

A demonstration is most useful when it tests the parts of your site that could affect the decision. Bring the person who normally maintains the area and work through:

• The difficult ground: banks, uneven patches, tree cover, boundaries and narrow access.

• The available mowing window: when the area is used, when mowing is appropriate for people and wildlife, and how charging and travel fit within that time.

• The finish required: mowing height, presentation and the edges or obstacles that will still need attention.

• The daily responsibility: who checks the machine, responds to alerts and carries out routine care.

• The support arrangement: training, assistance, servicing and what happens if the machine is unavailable.

These answers help turn an interesting demonstration into a workable plan. They also give you a basis for reviewing the results once the equipment is in use.

Talk through your site with Groundserv

Start with a few photographs, an outline of the area and an estimate of the staff time currently spent mowing it. Tell us which other jobs you would like the team to have more time for.

We can help you explore the Kress robotic mowing options, discuss a demonstration and work through a setup and quotation for your site.

Contact Groundserv or call 020 8641 7979.