Driving Uptime Through Curiosity, Humility, and Direct Field Exposure

A machine turned on will, at some point, need attention. The question that separates high-performing facilities operations from struggling ones is whether the organization learns from each breakdown, builds processes informed by the people closest to the equipment, and chooses partners who care about operational outcomes rather than just invoice volume. The answer, consistently, is that uptime is driven by the knowledge that comes from asking questions, watching how things actually work, and staying curious enough to keep improving even when a process seems finished.

Taz Sutherland, Director of Retail Sales at Alexander Food Equipment Group, has perfected this approach working in diverse parts of the industry. He spent 22 years with Walmart in equipment maintenance and facilities leadership, overseeing programs for roughly 5,300 U.S. kitchens, then moved to the OEM side as a national account manager at Hobart Food Equipment and Service. His career has been defined by a hands-on, curiosity-driven approach to understanding why equipment fails and how the people operating it can be better supported.

"You have to be humble enough to say, 'I may be the smartest guy in the room, or I may be the dumbest guy in the room. I'm going to ask and find out,'" Sutherland says. That humility runs through every layer of how he builds uptime programs, starting not with what he thinks will work, but with what the people closest to the equipment already know.

Three layers of field intelligence

Sutherland's process for building effective maintenance and uptime programs follows a consistent pattern: learn from the OEM, validate with operators, and verify through direct observation. When a new piece of equipment enters the operation, his first call goes to the manufacturer for real-world intelligence. "I'd ask the OEM, who else like me uses this? What are the top five things they struggle with? Usually within 48 hours, you have a data dump of challenges and best practices from other operators in similar environments. That's your starting point."

From there, the draft process goes to operators, the people who will actually use the equipment daily. Sutherland hands them a preliminary checklist and lets them pick it apart. The results, he says, are predictable and valuable. "I would typically go back with about 60% of it needing rework, but that's okay, because now when leadership asks, 'Did you ask the OEM? Did you ask operators?' the answer is yes to both. By the time it reaches the final decision-makers, it's a solid process built by the people who actually touch the equipment," he explains.

The third layer is ride-alongs with service technicians. Sutherland considers these the most underutilized source of operational insight in facilities management. His process includes spending full days riding with techs, visiting multiple sites, and listening to what they observed across different operators and environments. "By the end of the day, they have unloaded their concerns. They've found a friendly ear, and you've gained a ridiculous amount of current insight. It's great intelligence."

Processes should enable, not constrain

Sutherland is direct about the risk of checklists and procedures that look good on paper but create friction in practice. "When you constrict people with a list that doesn't work, they'll break stuff more," he says. "It adds to their day. Their manager is screaming because they're about to hit overtime, so they take shortcuts." Shortcuts, he says, break equipment, which is one more argument in favor of writing strong processes that enable operators rather than confine them. 

He applies the same curiosity to shortcuts themselves, pointing out that not every workaround is a problem. Some reveal a better process. "If we didn't need those five steps and the job still gets done without breaking the machine, take them out," he asserts. "But if the shortcut is causing workarounds that create new failures, then we have to come up with a smarter way." He points to a recurring example of operators repeatedly breaking wooden paddles during production. The instinct might be to blame the operator, but Sutherland's instinct is to ask questions. "You're working fast and you've got a lot going on. Can we look at how you're doing that? Maybe I don't buy so many paddles now. Maybe it's the cost of doing business because you're turning out great product. But let's find out before we react."

The same logic applies to equipment selection. If a machine marketed as commercial-grade keeps failing, the answer may not be better maintenance. It may be the wrong machine for the job. "Am I using it right? Is it actually built for what I'm asking it to do? You have to have that conversation with the OEM. They're the experts on their machine. Maybe I'm buying the one that's not for my environment."

Go after the business, not the money

The sharpest distinction Sutherland draws in vendor relationships comes from a moment in a meeting with an oven manufacturer. The vendor was being awarded additional territory based on proven performance, and a colleague of Sutherland's made the point that has shaped his partnership philosophy ever since. "He told them, 'You're getting the business because you're a partner that is after my business. You're not after my money.'" The difference is operational. A vendor chasing money optimizes for invoices. A partner invested in the business understands what the operation needs and delivers solutions that reduce total cost, even when that means going beyond the scope of a single work order. "We had partners who might get a $200 work order, but they knew the machine was nine years old and we wouldn't spend more than $900 on it," Sutherland says. "If they could get it running for $300, they'd go ahead and fix it so they didn't have to charge us for a return trip. If you're after my business, we're going to be good friends. If you're after my money, I'm going to find someone else."

Stay close to the field

Facilities management comes with a lot of desk work, from emails to budgets to approvals. Sutherland acknowledges this work's seemingly gravitational pull, but he's emphatic that the leaders who consistently drive uptime are the ones who maintain regular, direct exposure to the field. "There's so much desk jockeying in facilities, but even if you do a ride-along every six months, it's a sanity break. You gain insight from the people who are actually in the field every day. You can't get that from a spreadsheet." Ultimately, Sutherland's operating principle boils down to a simple concept. If you're just managing invoices, you're not managing uptime, but if you're trying to improve, costs naturally come down. "Everybody's always complaining about the budget, but if you chase improvement from the field up, I guarantee you're saving money. Otherwise, you're just yelling at people for invoices. That's not productive in anybody's world."