Recently I commented on a TurfNet Forum post under the heading “Robotic Mower Readiness Score”. My response expressing resistance to autonomous mowers (AM) was a knee-jerk reaction to a larger topic I feel strongly about. I expressed a positive but secondary response to the AM matrix assessment the original forum post was based on. In hindsight, my larger topic response lacked deep analysis of this issue. Regardless, and despite my propensity to shoot from my often less-than-fully-informed hip, I stand by my thoughts on the whole. However, I do think they need some further consideration, clarification, and dare I say a dose of objectivity (not my strong suit). What follows is my attempt to provide a rational assessment of autonomous mowers. It is based on my professional opinion and is not meant to be authoritative. It is also not exhaustive in addressing all of the topics tangential to AM. I welcome disagreement but hope for some agreement. Please read on.

Why They Will Work
The first benefit of AM is the elimination of human inconsistencies. These mowers will not miss time, argue, or get bored. They can work though adverse weather conditions without exposure concerns. They can provide consistency and production that can benefit planning and execution. While they will need programming, monitoring, and preventive maintenance, I suggest these requirements will not require more resources than human counterparts and could likely consume less management intervention. They can perform jobs that can be dangerous for staff to perform, reducing workers’ exposure to dangerous conditions and hazardous machinery/accidents. The main application I see is hilly terrain but there are certainly others. AM’s may generate cost savings once initial start up costs are covered. They do not need a salary or benefits nor do they need HR/payroll administration. They can also support overall team production and site quality regarding both their primary tasks, plus allow existing staff to perform jobs not suited to autonomous machinery options.

Why They Won’t Work
The main argument against autonomous mowers is high initial cost. Depending on the quality and performance of the machine, prices can quickly move into tens of thousands of dollars. Maintenance costs should be more predictable, but mishaps can be costly. Mishaps such as programming and control communication errors, mishaps with unforeseen field conditions, or typical mechanical failures will still occur. Quality can be uneven due to variable field conditions. Adaptive components can adjust to some extent but are still being developed/improved. Additional support from vendors and service may be spotty due to the novelty of these products and their usage/support capabilities. Interpersonal communication and relationships with patrons using the course/grounds is diminished which may have negative impacts on patron’s value placed on the grounds team. Perhaps the largest concern is liability issues. In the event of accidents, damage, or even personal injury, what is the liability faced by the equipment owner/operator or manufacturer.

My Personal Journey to Judgment
As I said before, I frequently react quickly, then think, which sometimes leads to changing my position. If I didn’t moderate my viewpoints based on new experience/information, I’d still be mowing with a belly deck rather than a ZTR. I think my deepest resistance to AM’s comes from the replacement of human staff. In my 37 years in the Green Industry, I have consistently been subject to scrutiny of my position and operational necessity. Can we outsource? Can we drive down composite wages? Can we do more with less? Can we cut budgets? I am not adverse to innovation and improving our operations. I do believe that automation disproportionately hits manual labor jobs. I won’t say unskilled because I don’t see any position on my staff as lacking skills. I also believe this is a slippery slope that will be hard to stop once it gets rolling. My job as manager may be safe right now, but could automation (software) replace my job as easily as a mower?

I do believe that automation disproportionately hits manual labor jobs. I won’t say unskilled because I don’t see any position on my staff as lacking skills...

What Now?
I often tell my team that working hard is the best solution to our problems. In my opinion a successful operation is its best defense against outside “improvement” ideas based in uninformed scrutiny. I am a craftsman and grounds management professional. I also am human. This aspect must be seen as the greatest benefit to performing my craft rather than an operational flaw that can be replaced through automation. To me, the human versus autonomous mower needs more evaluation. Automation should take place where it aligns strategically with the betterment of the product, and the greater good of the organization. This INCLUDES THE TEAM. I must be clear eyed in consideration of any emerging technology. I shouldn’t dismiss it because I think it is a narrow minded answer. But other possible answers such as improved work environment, training, etc. should be evaluated robustly also. Heck, maybe a better question in some settings is why are we mowing at all? If after thorough assessment, by diverse stakeholders, autonomous mowing actually does serve the greater good, my team, and grounds management professionals like us will be the best people to administer it.