All Ideas

Some partners are organized via industry segments, and it would be valuable to have an industry filter in ASPX. Less manual labor on the partner side to pull customer industry targets. 

Overview:Angi (eGroup) highlighted a critical trend impacting partner revenue streams: as customers transition from EA to CSP, they often discontinue Unified Support because CSP includes break-fix support at no additional cost. This shift significantly reduces the perceived need for paid managed services, creating a structural GTM blocker for partners like eGroup.Detailed Feedback & Context:Customer Behavior:Many customers only use Unified Support for ticket resolution and do not leverage its additional value-add services (training, proactive engagement).When moving to CSP, these customers see an opportunity to eliminate costs while still receiving break-fix support, making managed services upsell difficult.Angi noted: “We try to upsell it and want to be in there, but as people make that move, they’re like, sweet, I can save money on this and what I still need tickets for is just included in being a CSP.”Market Dynamics:CSP indirect providers like Ingram offer robust Tier 2 support and absorb Microsoft escalation costs, reinforcing the perception that CSP support is “good enough.”This model commoditizes basic support and erodes differentiation for partners who traditionally relied on Unified Support gaps to position premium managed services.Partner Impact:Reduced attach opportunities for managed services, especially for customers who prioritize cost savings over enhanced experience.Even when prospects express dissatisfaction with Unified Support (e.g., poor value, lack of technical depth), converting them to paid managed services remains challenging for large enterprises due to cost competitiveness.Angi emphasized that non-break-fix requests (e.g., proactive optimization) are rare, limiting upsell triggers.Business Implications:Revenue Risk: Partners lose a key monetization lever as CSP adoption accelerates.Customer Experience Gap: Customers may settle for reactive support, missing opportunities for proactive optimization and strategic guidance.Program Misalignment: Current CSP support structure unintentionally disincentivizes managed services adoption, conflicting with Microsoft’s goal of driving partner-led value.Recap: eGroup + Enabling/FRP Microsoft Sync Wednesday, November 12 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams

Following an ASPX training session delivered to Projetlys partner, they mentioned that they would like to see in ASPX opportunity table the name of the person who submitted the CPOR claim from their side. In theory, the person who submitted the CPOR claim is also the Project Manager (the owner of the customer project). And when exporting ASPX data, this would allow better partner follow-up, and will allow them to assign each customer opportunity to the accountable person. Just FYI, started the API conversation but they are not ready yet for full API integration. 

When adding an idea in PRM under account details/Ideas. Click new, add new information. Under Author, enter name and name does not resolve. Upon multiple attempts it appears to work intermittently. Impact ability to submit feedback and insights in PRM. Can test with my name Dan Will.

Many partner feedback to add formal names to workloads in ASPX such as DLM P1. Partner unable to interpret without going to Learn. Impact ability to scale across teams who do not know formal workload name.

Our data today is broken down into individual workloads. This is great for an EA customer that aligns to E3 and E5 license types. In the SMB space the CSP terms for licenses are Business essentials or standard and Business Premium. Some of the advanced workload have add on SKUs to these “hero” SKUs. It would be great if we could map the workload to the license type that aligns with CSP. 

Some of the Disti PDMs have raised concerns over the amount of Data we are exposing to potential competitors and the motion of Share shift.  It has been proposed that if a certain partner doesn't own the majority of the license that we don't expose the data in their feeds. This is potentially more important in the CSP world as customers can purchase licenses form multiple partners. 

General Observation:There is some perceived overlap and emerging competition between ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and to a lesser extent, Google Gemini. However, the use cases and user experiences differ significantly.1. Adoption & Usage PatternsShadow AI:Many organizations see employees using ChatGPT privately or professionally (so-called “Shadow AI”). This happens regardless of corporate policy and can affect Copilot adoption rates.Organizational Deployment:Some organizations experiment with a company-wide version of ChatGPT or a “local” deployment. This group is smaller but visible.2. User Experience DifferencesChatGPT:Perceived as better tuned to users — feels more natural and intuitive.Users appreciate that ChatGPT remembers context and history, which makes workflows smoother.The textual output quality (especially rewritten or summarized texts) is often considered more elegant and better phrased.Copilot:Users find it less fluid, as it doesn’t remember context beyond the immediate prompt — each item must be provided manually.The integration with Microsoft data (e.g., Outlook, Teams, SharePoint) is seen as a huge advantage, but still developing.The RAI principles and enterprise data safeguards make the product feel more secure and compliant, which users appreciate for corporate environments.3. Competitive LandscapeGemini:Some awareness of Gemini rising as another player, but limited direct experience or impact so far.Overall Perception:Users view ChatGPT as stronger in language generation and “creative” use cases, while Copilot is recognized as more governed, secure, and enterprise-ready, though still maturing in flexibility and contextual understanding.4. Individual Remarks“ChatGPT is textually stronger; its rewritten outputs are more beautiful and refined.”“Copilot still needs to build up the same level of contextual memory that ChatGPT already has.”“Integration between ChatGPT and Microsoft data is accelerating — in principle, it could soon do the same as Copilot.”

Please increase partner-facing technical enablement sessions—similar to the October Copilot Oversharing Guidance Community Call. Partners struggle to keep up with rapid updates in M365, especially Copilot and Security.   What’s needed More frequent partner-facing calls/webinars with: Latest feature updates and roadmap highlights Deployment/adoption best practices and security guidance   Impact Improves pre-sales confidence Accelerates M365 products adoption Strengthens competitive positioning

Following a Security Compete Partner Insights meeting with Exakis partner, EPS Security GTM  (Petra Korica) and Security Compete Strategy Lead (Ozge Sahin), Exakis partner shared an important feed-back about the lack of Purview for structured data for MCI envisioning.  For Purview focused on Structured Data, it implies databases, data lake, data warehouse or any systems that propose a structured data.Those services in Purview (Data Map, Data Catalog, Data Quality, etc) are not on the same pricing model because they are based on Azure Consumption. Customers want to assess the solution on several topics including Classification, Protection, governance & Compliance for those structured data using those features which are not part of any modules in the current engagement.

Partners face challenges converting EA customers to CSP because EA contracts offer access to programs and funding that CSP cannot match. This creates friction during renewal cycles and slows CSP growth. Recommend publishing clear guidance and value comparison for EA vs CSP, along with potential funding levers to offset gaps. Both BDO and Quisitive have provided this feedback in Q2.  EA to CSP Transition Challenges and Funding Opportunities: Michelle and Josh discussed the complexities of transitioning customers from EA to CSP, including eligibility, funding programs, and the need for compelling business cases to secure Microsoft support, with input from Emily on operational alignment. Recap: BDO:Microsoft - FRP Rhythm of Business Tuesday, October 28 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams 

We are looking at “Insights” data in Partner Center and on the Copilot tab, we can see Potential Earnings which is calculating customers doing BOTH the pre-sales Envisioning & POC workshop as well as the Deployment Accelerator engagement. Do you have data or a resource to pull high level statistics on how many customers do BOTH engagements in their Copilot journey? This information will be helpful in getting to a more realistic understanding of potential earnings to share with ELT.

Refresher needed regarding ASPX data sharing both internal and external with partners. Would like to have formal guidance to ensure we stay compliant with corp rules.

The MCI guide outlines the steps required to validate an engagement; however, it does not specify at which point(customer nomination or customer consent) a workshop ceases to be eligible for other partners. Clarifying this would help partners understand the process when a customer is associated with another partner. It would also assist partners and internal teams in determining whether an issue is due to a system error or because another partner has already initiated the engagement, particularly in cases where an engagement initially appears eligible but then becomes ineligible.

The current MCI engagement guidelines do not provide clarity on scenarios where an engagement is cancelled after nomination but before delivery, or when payment has already been processed by the team. This ambiguity creates confusion for partners regarding whether such cancellations impact their performance metrics. To address this, the guide should explicitly outline these situations and confirm that partner performance will not be negatively affected when an engagement is cancelled under these circumstances. Clear guidance, including examples and FAQs, will help ensure transparency, prevent misinterpretation, and maintain partner confidence in the evaluation process.

PSMs currently have success plan templates; however, this year’s objective is to be integrated into PDM business plans as part of the pod. These business plans include draft slides for each solution area with FY26 priorities. While actions may evolve, having a draft slide, similar to Win Formula slides or the Azure PSM Growth Plan—would be highly valuable for our role, outlining priorities aligned to MCEM stages 4 and 5. PSMs can then add specific details, but this approach would simplify inclusion in the pod and create a standardized framework across all roles. It would also help overcome any potential resistance from PDMs by presenting a more professional and structured format.

Partners have expressed concerns about the current performance measurement requirements in MCI engagements, particularly the expectation for customers to commit to license purchases before workshops are delivered. This creates hesitation among partners, who fear being penalized if the customer does not convert. As a result, some partners choose not to engage at all, missing opportunities to showcase the product and potentially influence customer decisions. To address this, would it be an option to allow 1–2 engagements per partner per year to be excluded from performance requirements? Maybe by adding criterias as can be used on education customers or the customers above x amount of seats. This would give partners the flexibility to deliver workshops to customers they believe have strong potential or genuine interest, even if those customers cannot confirm investment upfront, ultimately encouraging more proactive engagement and reducing missed opportunities.

When presenting to Wakers partner the different scenarios in MPX (ASPX) to drive Secure AI Productivity, Security and Copilot upsell opportunities and when checking the End date of the Subscriptions (they are not an LSP, and they do not have access to EA renewal date), they noticed a potential improvement that could be added to the tool.They mentioned some customers have automatic renewal enabled for their licenses, so for this type of contract, it is not useful to check the End date of the Subscription and initiate specific actions on customer side to secure the renewal. They would like to see this option ("Auto Renew Opt-in") flagged in the Subscriptions page. *The “Auto Renew Opt-In” must be selected before the contract is signed to activate automatic renewal. Business Impact: Reduce the efforts of the Partner Sales Teams to get in touch with customers prior to renewal and drive renewal conversation while the renewal will be done however automatically.  Help the partner prioritize even better the customers who need to be targeted for renewal conversations. 

With the rollout of ASPX to all partners, non-FastTrack partners now have access to the dashboard. While learning materials are available in the portal, GPS team members familiar with the platform have requested sessions for their partners by country/area.To avoid creating duplicate efforts for PSMs, a more efficient approach would be to organize a single webinar on how to use the dashboard. PSMs can then share the recording or link with GPS teams, ensuring all interested partners can access the training.

Microsoft shows inconsistent data for the partners in PC which leads confusion and delays on partner end. An example, the partner has 5 certified people to achieve Copilot specialization. The numbers for example "Microsoft Applied Skills: Create agents in Microsoft Copilot Studio" are not the same across partner center. In skilling report for Copilot Advance Certification, is stated there are 3, in Training section of the Insights, there are 2 and when the skilling report is downloaded, this exam doesn't exist. The numbers are off across the partner center which slows down the process, confusing the partners and preventing them from having necessary certificates on time to proceed with business opportunities.  

Request to Include Customer Sub Segments in all Reports (MPX and others)

Request to Include CSP Revenue to PIIR in PSM Dashboard to measure the partner contribution across CSP deals

Softchoice is deprioritizing Microsoft Immersion Briefings because: 1. Programmatic ConstraintsParticipant Cap: Microsoft’s Immersion Briefings limit sessions to 35 companies, while Softchoice’s Customer Immersion Experiences (CIEs) often host 50–150 customers. This cap makes the program less scalable for their engagement model.Environment Requirement: The mandate to use Microsoft’s environment for Immersion Briefings was seen as unnecessary because customers already have access to the needed environment for Copilot Chat. 2. Survey & Proof of Execution (POE) IssuesDual Surveys: Microsoft requires its own survey in addition to Softchoice’s, which leads to low response rates and extra friction for customers.POE Flexibility: Softchoice wants Microsoft to accept partner-led survey data for POE, but this is not yet confirmed.3. Misalignment with Softchoice’s ModelSoftchoice has a mature one-to-many CIE program that scales better and aligns with their go-to-market strategy. Immersion Briefings feel restrictive compared to their established approach.4. Strategic FocusSoftchoice is prioritizing broad Copilot Chat engagement (upsell, cross-sell, net new) over program-specific targets like QuickStart or Immersion Briefings. They want flexibility to execute at scale and demonstrate impact through their own metrics. 

The CSI program previously excluded certain markets. However, in current MCI guide which covers EA Security engagements as well, there is no mention of excluded markets. This clarification needs to be provided to the partners and be included in the guidelines for partners focusing on the right markets to achieve success.

Situation: Some customer shows MAU > PAU Request : Add details Needs clarity of reason why? is it data error? is it counting trial license? is it possible technically MAU>PAU . Happen in many customers in various security workloads Add suggestion talking point what to discuss with customer based on the reason. 

Request to enhance MPX by including the count of all eligible customer seats as whitespace in Copilot opportunities. This will enable better prioritization based on customer size and improve opportunity targeting. Current Limitation: Whitespace is calculated as Paid MAU - Free Chat MAU, which doesn’t reflect total customer potential.Partner Impact: Partners currently need to manually analyze license data to estimate customer size, which is time-consuming and inconsistent.Currently partner need to understand customer size by analyzing the existing license

I would like to request the addition of a CSP Renewal column to the customer data section in FPX. Currently, FPX includes the EA Renewal column, but it would be helpful to also have the CSP Renewal column. Partners take different approaches depending on whether a customer has an EA or CSP agreement, so they need visibility into the type of agreement and its renewal timing within FPX. When prioritizing customers, partners first check the agreement type and renewal timing.

I would like to request the addition of a customer segment filter in FPX. Our partners are strategically focusing on SMC customers. However, FPX currently includes both Enterprise and SMC segment customers, which requires manual extraction of SMC data. This process is time-consuming and has become a blocker for FPX adoption.

CSP product names do not correlate to the workloads in the MPX data feeds. CSP sellers need to understand what the usage data means in the CSP vernacular. i.e. Business essentials, etc. 

Distribution needs to have both the Tier1 and the Teir 2 resellers information in the API feed for integration into their provisioning and billing reseller portals.

Request to add the information of the incentive, from CPOR, MCI , Deployment Offer earned together in the Land and Expand dashboard. Background; leadership team to utilize the MPX dashboard consistently, having motivation that it will help doing renewal, upsell, incentive, when they use the dashboard they want to actually see the immediate impact of which and if the effort resulted in the revenue, without having to spend too much manual effort cheking one by one currently

Test

Currently in MPX a user is able to filter on MCI by selecting either 'Eligible' or ‘Ineligible’. To allow for better targeting depending on the specific campaign or motion a partner is looking to run, it would be useful if the filtering was more granular. For example, the ability to filter on Copilot eligibility, Data Security etc.

In FY26, SharePoint and Exchange workloads have been removed from the scope of the FastTrack benefit. As a result, partners are no longer expected to support customers with migration prerequisites, such as readiness assessments. To ensure clarity around the updated requirements, it would be great to develop a concise OnePager or a formal Knowledge Base article. This resource should outline the FY26 changes, include visual aids, and guide partners on how to position their value-added services (VAS) and assist customers in initiating their migration projects.

Currently, the Change Columns button in the FPX customer data area allows users to add or remove data fields displayed. However, these settings are not saved, so every time we access FPX, we must reconfigure the columns. While this may seem like a small task, it becomes a repetitive burden over time. If the Change Columns configuration could be retained, it would significantly reduce wasted time in the long run and greatly improve the usability of FPX. As an advanced enhancement, allowing users to save multiple personalized views e.g., My Views would be even more powerful. This would enable instant switching between different perspectives for analysis, making workflows faster and more efficient.

Partner described the high-stakes nature of the new performance metrics, where partners must demonstrate sustained Copilot adoption over 12 months, and the risk of being paused if targets are not met, especially for smaller partners.  The risk of usage regression post baseline is a concern that can be due to customer out of business or organizational disruptions.  How will these be addressed? Can a high water mark post baseline at claim be considered? 

Partners can benefit from an Microsoft office hours regarding extensibility, how to leverage use cases for Agents bridging conversations between business stakeholders and IT from deploying agent to getting them into production.  Partner asks if SME's personas are available for business and IT stakeholder conversation guidance to bridge the gap

Hello,Are there any plans to expand the demo tenant offerings available on the Microsoft Demo eXperiences (MDX) site to include newer solutions such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, Entra Suite, Intune Suite, and others.Having access to demo environments for these products would be incredibly valuable for us. It would allow our team to gain hands-on experience with setup and configuration, which in turn would help us deliver more effective walkthroughs and demonstrations of the associated ADGs.Thank you

Hello team,One of my partners shared today that it would be great to have the eligible product lists for the Cloud Endpoint Envisioning & PoC workshop, to know exactly what products will generate the revenue impact needed for the new MCI Performance measurements. While looking closer to this, I noticed that the Eligible Product List is available only for this EA Security Accelerate program (https://aka.ms/EASecurityAccelerateGuide). However, similar lists are missing from the main MCI Guide (https://aka.ms/incentivesguide) or from the Security Performance Measurements (https://assetsprod.microsoft.com/mpn/en-us/fy26-security-partner-investments-performance-measurements.pdf) and the Modern Work Performance Measurements (https://assetsprod.microsoft.com/mpn/en-us/fy26-modern-work-partner-investments-performance-measurements.pdf).It would be very helpful for partners and for us to include the full list of eligible products/SKUs for all MCI Engagements with revenue-based performance measurements directly in the respective performance guides. This should cover, at minimum, the following engagements:Copilot + Power Envisioning & PoCCopilot + Power Deployment AcceleratorSecure Productivity Envisioning & PoCCloud Endpoints Envisioning & PoCData Security Envisioning WorkshopThreat Protection Envisioning WorkshopHaving these lists in the official guides will help partners plan, deliver, and report on engagements more effectively, and ensure alignment with program requirements.Thank you for considering this feedback!  

My idea would be for me to have a way to quicky get a preformatted report from Partner Center within 1 click.  Currently I go to the Partner Center page and gather data for my sales team. The sales team doesn't have access so I provide them with the information on existing customers that are ready for any MCI, SCI, E3, or E5 upgrades. Currently I have to select the area in Partner Center that I want to export. Then it processes into a CSV file. I then download the CSV file. I have to open Excel use Get Data and point it to the CSV. After that, I have to click on Transform Data and the screen switches to the Data Screen where I can set the values for each cell. For example, Customer Is Eligible the value may be set to 1 or ineligible may be set to 2. However on my report I want the word Eligible or Ineligible so I se that on this screen.After all that I have to close and import the data into Excel. From there I have to use the existing data to create a Pivot table to group all the like data together. This would be more efficient if that was all done on the backend and what I download is an editable Excel sheet. Just have a basic template with all the data logically sorted and let the user be able to edit it so they can change whatever they need on their time. This would be so helpful and save massive amounts of editing time.

Problem statement: FPX currently shows the number of available workshops but not the specific eligible workshops. Impact: Users need to click to see eligibility, which is inefficient. Measurement: Improved user efficiency and satisfaction.

Problem statement: Need to show EDU customers and SKUs in Insights.Specific process/tool/data: FPXImpact: EDU customers and SKUs not visible.Measure impact: Improved visibility of EDU data.

Problem statement: Need functionality to select one MCI engagement and see a list of all eligible customers.Specific process/tool/data: FPXImpact: Unable to create targeted campaigns efficiently.Measure impact: Increased campaign success rate. 

We are a global company that manages FastTrack centrally. We recently received questions from our teams in Germany and Australia about redeeming Deployment Vouchers. We confirmed we could, but now have to figure out the Accounting on the back end for the payments. It would be better if we could redeem these vouchers through Partner Center where we already have Partner IDs and Payment and Tax profiles set up for these various markets. Is there a reason that Workshops are managed through the MCI portal and Partner Center, but Vouchers have to be managed in the FastTrack Partner Community Portal?

As partners and Microsoft focus on moving customers to NCE contracts at renewal, is Microsoft considering allowing customers renewing from EA into NCE to be eligible for the MW Security Deployment Offer voucher program? We have several opportunities where we are working with Microsoft on renewals and encouraging customers to move to NCE, which disqualifies them from the voucher program. These customers are renewing from M365 E3 to M365 E5 and need assistance with deploying security products and would be a great fit for the deployment voucher.

Process and Expectations - FastTrack – Microsoft 365 | Microsoft Learn   Hi dear team,    Many discussions with partners generated this piece of feedback/advise, to help customers understand that they can involve themselves directly with FRP instead of raising an RFA. Sometimes customers/partners think that the process requires the completion of an RFA to "officialize" the association process, when in reality, just a CPOR claim is sufficient. With the RME engine, raising an RFA via the "official" source can translate into an assignment to a wrong partner, when in reality, the customer doesn't even need to raise that RFA in the first place.   Our suggestion is to change the vocabulary in the "Engaging FastTrack" to something like: "Raising FastTrack assistance requests are not required for customers already working with our FastTrack Ready Partner (link here). Instead of just "For a list of FastTrack Ready Approved partners, click here"."   I am available for additional conversations around this.

Please add an option to add multiple files when submitting our claims. Often you revert to us to ask for the sign log. Will causes a delay in approval. We could submit the sign log together with the signed document. 

Is it possible to include a change log whenever the FastTrack Microsoft learn page is updated?    Changes and updates are made fairly frequently throughout the year (Products and Capabilities, Entra, Sentinel, Office 365 sections), but it is not really clear what has been updated.   FastTrack Center Benefit for Microsoft 365​ - FastTrack – Microsoft 365 | Microsoft Learn

For global partners it would be very helpful if there would be a downloadable voucher earnings statement that would contain complete earnings for all location IDs. The Power BI statement under Partner Statement Report · FastTrack Partner Community Portal is nice, but as global admin I would have to drill into every single location ID which makes working with the earnings report very clumsy. Would be great to have a consolidated view across all location Ids.... Thank you! :) 

Why not have automated forms sent out to partners after a certain period of time to provide feedback on a referral? 

We need to log CPOR for program performance. We have clients that decline to complete the POE for CPOR because we are claiming Copilot or other Modern Workloads all because in partnercenter currently CPOR of Modern work or Security workloads is called Security Usage Incentive this is confusing for the client! please rename the partnercenter ability to CPOR to something more generic like CPOR for Modern Work/Security or something but not only "Security Usage Incentive"     many thanks

Our customers are finding it very confusing to sign the POE before having to complete the full SoW because of the naming of both Proof of Execution and Proof of Engagement document having the same text in the document, and says that the partner has performed these activities already. Nevertheless, we are required to have this document signed by the client PRIOR to claiming CPOR.

With the current focus on the Customer Copilot Adoption Journey, we are actively conducting many workshops and engagements supporting Copilot. As we enter Funding/Incentive Claims for Proof of Value or Role-Based Deployment & Adoption Accelerator workshops, these claims should automatically align to a Change Partner of Record claim, utilizing the same POE already required to complete the association rather than requiring that a separate CPOR claim and documentation submission occur. This will also reduce the need to send another email to the customer contact to approve of the association.I can see not making the association automatic for the Vision and Value workshops, but if they involve a Proof of Concept/Value or Deployment/Adoption aspect I think it should be streamlined.Do you agree?

This is regarding the FastTrack Community partners.  We are currently unable to edit our endorsement profile, which has resulted in us receiving a referral for a workload that we are not specialized in. We are a Converged communications partner, but we received a referral in SPO due to our ACM, Teams Rooms and phone specializations, that includes that SPO, although it is not requirement to drive growth and consumption around it. We are hoping the option to edit the endorsements will become available for partners like us that does not have the required specialist to deliver the service and who will be negatively affected by declining the referral. Thanks! 

LXP Dashboard(Opportunities)で実態として該当しない顧客がオポチュニティとして表示されるため、SKUの判定ロジックを見直し、正しいSKUで扱われるように変えて欲しい。例) 既にME5をお持ちのお客様のSKUがO365と扱われているケースがあります。 Since customers who do not actually fall under this category are displayed as opportunities, I would like to see the SKU judgment logic reviewed and changed so that it is handled with the correct SKU.For example, there are cases where customers who already have ME5 have SKUs that are treated as O365.

Tech Plus にパートナーがアクセスできなくなったので、サービス概要書等を入手できるポータルを別途作成してほしい最新のサービスの概要書、技術要件書などが、FPMやPDM等に相談しないと入手できない。相談してもタイミングによっては、すぐ入手できなくて困る場合がある。ほしいデータとしては下記。今は Copilot とか AI 関連のサイトもあれば。Since partners no longer have access to Tech Plus, I would like to create a separate portal where they can obtain service overviews, etc.The latest service overviews and technical requirements are not available without consulting with FPM or PDM. Even if you consult, depending on the timing, you may not be able to get it right away. The data you want is as follows.Now there's Copilot and other AI-related sites.Enterprise Mobility + Security - 技術ドキュメント  Technical DocumentationM365 Security & Compliance - 技術ドキュメント  Technical DocumentationMicrosoft Azure - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationMicrosoft Viva - ドキュメント DocumentMicrosoft Viva - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationOffice Client - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationPower BI Analytics - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationPowerApps Flow - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationSharePoint - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationTeams - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationWindows Client - 技術ドキュメントTechnical DocumentationWindows Client - 標準ドキュメントTechnical Documentation

There should be a list of customers which should be made available to account managers or partners so we can proactively work with the ATU team on utilization and also working closely with the sales team for ensuring it is in the system, so the vouchers are eligible post sales, just like we had it in the days of Software Assurance vouchers.

We have started to receive 'Non-Benefit' referrals and noticed the notes lack details on why the customer did not qualify for the FT Benefit. Most of them seem like they should have qualified. Could more detail be provided on why the customer did not qualify for the FT Benefit? This could help us get to the right solution for the customer faster.

We find ourselves more often than not educating the Microsoft Field sellers on the MWDO (voucher) program - They have historically not all been aware and they don't attach it to the MSX opportunity, resulting in an RFA, with no funding post-sale.

Have you begun measuring how many dynamic/prioritized customers have an FRP attached vs. how many do not? Might that become a measured outcome of success in the future?

The requirement of 1000 Copilot-eligible licenses for the FastTrack Copilot campaign is still too high, especially compared to the eligibility for MCI Copilot workshops. It's hard to promote FastTrack’s exclusive Copilot offers because most buyers are still testing the product and are unlikely to commit to purchasing 1000+ licenses. Why hasn’t this been reviewed and adjusted, especially with many partners expressing concerns?

The first slide of this call mentioned that AI Transformation would be a key focus for FY25, but we haven't received any information on that or on Copilot. Will this be covered in another call? How do we prepare in time for any new campaigns that may come in that space?

Referral team does a poor job differentiating between FastTrack referral and Standard referrals. I have received a FastTrack referral that clearly stated in the case history "not a FastTrack assistance".

Any plans to better educate the Microsoft sellers on the FastTrack benefit? Many times we encounter sellers proposing FastTrack to customers and overselling what is actually in scope for the benefit.

Suggestion for next event - Explore presenting slides via PowerPoint Live in the meeting so that the links in the slides are clickable for the audience. Something I learned when conducting webinars

Difficulty in reaching Deployment Vouchers and customers not using them. Suggest that the referral team engages with customers to ensure voucher usage and explore converting unused vouchers into referrals.

Feedback was given on the need to better educate Customer Success Managers (CSMs) in Japan about the Voucher Program, as there was only one engagement last fiscal year. The problem is the lack of awareness among CSMs. The impact of not addressing this is low engagement in the program. To measure the impact, Microsoft could track the increase in CSMs’ knowledge and subsequent engagements by region.

As Viva workloads, especially Connections and Engage, are crucial drivers for customers to implement sophisticated intranets and migrate contents to the cloud it would be great whether to: - Add Viva Workloads to the eligible ones in M365 Deployment Voucher- Add Viva Deployment Vouchers as currently there are no deployment benfits for customers anymore except ECIF.  Hope that this feedback helps you to think about upcoming adjustments. We would be more than happy to be heard here.  Best regardsJens Paape

Hi team, regarding the Modern Work Deployment Vouchers we are seeing a lot of delay in customers deciding the affiliate partner for whom to give the voucher. This results in delay of activating the voucher and getting the deployment activities ongoing. Some customer segments have more delays than others, for example critical infrastructure related companies or government entities. Public sector overall is usually slower and resources in the customer side are really thin. This affects gravely in the project activities and we run great risk in not being able to deliver within the timeline because of customer resourcing. For better program experience for partners and better success for deployment activities one idea would be to extend the initial standard voucher deadlines for these kind of customers. The current possible extension of 2 months through request to the program team would come on top of this.

The RFA notes feedback - It would be great if carriage returns are retained in the notes as they are entered into the RFA... It comes across as a blob of text all in one paragraph and makes it challenging to read and reformat.

partners have encountered difficulties in locating a clear and detailed breakdown of the earnings. Specifically, they are unable to determine:When the usage was captured: The statements do not clearly indicate the time period during which the usage occurred.Which customer or workload the earnings were achieved from: There is a lack of information linking the earnings to specific customers or workloads Currently Partner Center statement doesn't offer these information 

FRP partners are in need of a report that shows them what payments are "in transit", meaning pending payments for earning adoption with customers that have not yet been posted, but are pending to be posted. 

Hi,  for the partner growth opportunity dashboard, it would be great to see the usage data by the customers where a partner is transactional partner. That would open great opportunities for a new service projects and adoption of additional M365 workloads. Thanks and best regards,Dennis   

good day  looking at the submission process for deployment voucher i have realized that you need to create two opportunities when submitting documents.1. you need to create the SOW - Initial opportunity,2. you need to recreate the same opportunity for POE submission. my idea, why don't you create option of submitting both POE and SOW on one opportunity ?

While switching to MIP agentless technology, the production environment was started without fully transferring the capabilities of the old version agents to MIP agentless. Operations performed with the agent became impossible.​Since not all capabilities of the old agent were transferred, the customer's migration capabilities from a different labeling solution were lost and migration became impossible.​​Label replacement, which could be done automatically thanks to the old MIP agent, became impossible. The customer was forced to manually remove all old labels. If this workload was not accepted, transition projects were cancelled. 

Hello!We recently received an RFA for Teams Rooms configuration which we don't get often and don't have test environment, devices or lab to fully deploy and test the Teams Room configuration.For better customer experience and learning purpose, it would be nice if Microsoft can provide us with Sandbox with Teams Rooms licenses along with demo and virtual Polycom and Surface Hub Gen 1 devices so we can test out few scenarios to successfully deliver customer engagements.Thank you 

If we could make the CPOR registration more automatic, we might have registered more customers. I think that the recognition can be collected in the same way as the customer answers a customer survey. We go into the partner center and tick the workloads we want to register. Then we write bullet points in a column under the checkbox, then this is sent in an automated form to the customer. Who then receives an email with an overview and a choice between acknowledging this or not. The customer can press a button that says yes, we acknowledge this, or the customer can choose to decline. If the customer accepts, the registration is automatically returned to Partner Center and the claim is processed. This requires good contact and information to the customer.

If Copilot really will be a workload in CPOR, please separate Copilot per usage per product. Like Dashboard Copilot Usage in Admin Portal. Because we will help customers to use Copilot not only in Outlook or Teams, for example. We will help customers to identify why users is not using Copilot in Excel, for example. The same approach of using Intune in Microsoft 365. 

Could you kindly consider creating " Others" category for Decline Reason of referrals? This will allow us to let Microsoft referral team know correct reason, and the assignment team can properly handle cusotmer's request after the Decline.

For FastTrack partner with many subsidiaries, it would be really useful to have an option to export the report for received RFAs and referrals. This would help analyze the performance across subsidiaries. We now need to turn to our MSFT FastTrack manager for that kind of report.

Allow Partners to use the FastTrack email referrals as a means to attach to the customer's requested workload. I have used this before with the customer responding back to the email with the CPOR language included and a request for a response approving the Partner attachment and it was approved. My last attempt has been rejected by the POE Validation Team even when referencing the previous approved claim. Make it easy on the customer and the Partner to get the Fasttrack engagement started. 

Would it be possible to consolidate mandatory requirements to maintain FastTrack Ready Partner? In T&C the requirements are "scattered throughout the document" - some (to have at least one specialization in MW and/or Security or be part of selected programs) are under FCP requirements, some (performance and success story/insights item) are under Program Criteria and some (to submit a claim via CPOR for at least one new Eligible Customer tenant per month) is under Fasttrack benefit Services... Recently I got information that Customer Success Story and Insights are not mandatory but recomanded. This is also not reflected in T&C.Proposal: separate section in T&C dedicated only to requirements to become/maintain FRP

We used to have visibility on Fast Track earning potential, account-wise on Partner Center per tenant. Would like to have this functionality back, forecasting right now is quite difficult without the same. 

With the updates that have been made to the workload names, it would be helpful to have the workloads listed in Partner Center updated to reflect the current workload names listed in the FastTrack Product and Capability index. Azure Active Directory Premium Conditional Access -> Microsoft Entra ID Premium Conditional Access Insider Risk Manager -> Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Or alternatively, if a guide/document can be created that details what workloads in Partner Center line up with the workloads mentioned in the FastTrack Product and Capability index.

We are both a security CSI partner as an FRP Partner for Modern Work. We are getting tremendous returns as CSI Partner where we are able to self-nominate customers for certain security engagement.Why isn't there something similar for Modern Work to self-nominate clients that are eligible for a W365 or Teams pilot. the current process is cumbersome and is delaying lead time to execution.   

Admins should be given an option to automatically create remediation policies from MDE to Intune.  Currently, the security tasks are initiated in MDE and then later manually carried on by Intune Admins.  It would be great if this is Automated from MDE to MDM. Since Enterprise App Catalog also out, there should also be an option to directly start creating packagers from MDE to Intune without any manual intervention. Cheers,DJ

 Adding estimated earnings in partner center is important for fasttrack ready partners for several reasons. First, it helps partners to track their progress and performance against their goals and expectations. By adding their estimated earnings, partners can see how much they have earned, how much they are eligible to earn, and how much they need to earn to reach the next level of incentives. This can help them to plan their sales and marketing strategies, identify opportunities and challenges, and optimize their cloud business.Second, it helps Microsoft to provide better support and guidance to partners. By adding their estimated earnings, partners can share their feedback and insights with Microsoft on the fasttrack program, the cloud solutions, and the customer needs and preferences. This can help Microsoft to improve the quality and relevance of the fasttrack benefits and resources, tailor the communication and engagement with partners, and address any issues or concerns that partners may have.Third, it helps to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the incentive payments. By adding their estimated earnings, partners can verify that their earnings are correctly calculated and reported, and that they match the actual customer adoption and usage of the cloud solutions. This can help to avoid any discrepancies or disputes that may arise between partners and Microsoft, and to ensure that partners receive their incentives on time and in full.Therefore, adding estimated earnings in partner center is a crucial step for fasttrack ready partners to maximize their benefits and grow their cloud business. It is also a way for partners to demonstrate their commitment and alignment with Microsoft's vision and strategy for the cloud. We encourage all fasttrack ready partners to add their estimated earnings in partner center as soon as possible, and to update them regularly as their business evolves.

To make sure that the most recent POE is used, in the Partner Center > Incentive | Customer Claim Section, include the POE document direct download link with the latest version of the file.

When we claim customers eligible for the FastTrack benefit, we need to fill out a document (SoW), saying what technology we will deliver to this customer, however, as we do not have visibility of the benefits available to the customer, we often make the claim and we later discover that the customer does not have this agreed benefit available. We needed to have a way to research the benefits that the customer has available, so we would be more assertive when offering and engaging the customer to start consuming the technology.

We continue to have difficulties accessing information and registering customers on the portal for CPOR actions. The portal is very slow and we are usually unable to add new customers. Furthermore, we are unable to easily access customer consumption information. We have a feeling that Microsoft is no longer using this type of benefit.

We shared with our Fasttrack PDM the issue with FPC Referrals just wanting us to solve their problem and not interested in new projects.  We have not garnered a single new project this year from FPC referrals.   Therefore, the ROI on the FPC Referrals has been poor.  Our FPC PDM asked if we were holding firm with FPC Referrals to the 2-3 hours of free services only.  We do try, but if the customer's issue takes longer than 2-3 hours the customer still expects it will be free regardless of how long it takes.  If we try to charge them, they just complain about us. ASK - We need Microsoft to truly partner with us and help set the boundaries and expectations of what a FPC Referral should expect from a partner - for free.   There is nothing in the original communication from MSFT to the customer to set any time boundary expectations.  Given this is a MSFT program. MSFT should be setting the clear expectations to customers.  

As a FastTrack Ready Partner, we would like to see certain workloads like M365 Copilot, Microsoft Entra ID incentivized under the Modern Work & Security Usage Incentive program. We get a plethora of RFAs for these workloads and readily assist the customers. But incentivizing these workloads for this fiscal will lead to more skin in the game for the partners and, justify the time and effort the partners put in to deliver these FastTrack benefits.

Hi team! The Service Usage report in FTOP has changed for the worse. It ineligible for the reporting usage. The same workload still repeats many rows for one customer. One workload should be listed only once per customer as it was in the previous version before dashboard update. Please return the previous version when it had enough information available for us partners.Thank you! 

Defender Vulnerability Management is now available as a standalone offer for more customers and use cases. It complements your endpoint detection and response (EDR) solution and has been expanded to include vulnerability assessments of containers.This technology is not in the FastTrack eligible workloads. We have several customers asking for assistance with this workload.I suggest adding this workload to the list of FastTrack workloads and include in the Modern Work and Security Usage Incentives. 

For the MW Deployment Offer is there a way to consolidate the paperwork?  Right now, partners must enter (copy & paste) some of the customer information 4 times (voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email etc.)For example: 1) I generate info into the initial SOW 2) Then I have to submit the initial SOW into the portal.  The portal requires that I enter the voucher #, customer name and tenant ID # that is already in the SOW.  Additionally, I have to populate the Program Membership, why can’t it just auto populate?  I only have one program?3) Then I copy and paste the same information from the SOW over to POE 4) Then for the 4th time I required to re-enter information (voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email etc.) into portal coping and pasting the info again from the SOW and POE for final submissions.   A lot of coping and pasting of the same information over and over. Is there any way this can flow into Partner Center (PC) where it can be more automated like other program such as AMM or the MCI offers.  Yes, we may have to submit the initial information, but the tool would allow us to add information such as voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email & load SOW initially to a claim.  Then when engagements is completed, like other programs such as AMM and MCI it allows partners to send consent emails (directly from PC) as POE which would be great replacement for the final POE document.

We have encountered several times that Microsoft's account teams have no idea of the vouchers and often think they don't really exist. As partner we have no way of telling them where to ask for information or request the voucher, making it impossible to continue with the program since people's ignorance on the matter is the main stopper.

When I go from my Teams environment to Microsoft Teams environment I am logged in as a guest. However I lose the ability to right click on messages and choose "Translate" or set my browser to automatically translate to English.  Microsoft's environment is meant to be a global environment. Even though I speak, and read Japanese, it is much more efficient to have everything popped into English. It's less stressful and cuts down on mistakes due to misinterpretation.  I am talking about the Microsoft Japan Teams environment but I think all MS environments worldwide should have instant translation ta make the data more accessible to people that are not native language speakers for that region. 

For the Advanced Deployment Guide I suggest adding a Notes section next to each tab.  The notes should include things like "Submitted to Change Control date", Who is responsible for the task and let it tag that person in chat or in email like a Facrbook tag does.  Furthermore all the notes from the tasks like "Start date", "Who is responsible", "Completion date",  "Change Control approval status" should all be able to be ported to a PowerBI page so the managers can look at the data and determine where bottlenecks are in each process.  This would make ADG a powerful and appealing management tool and reporting tool for customer's IT managers.

I think that you could add somewhere in the release notes or give a Certificate of appreciation when a person tells MS about a Bug or a new feature they want on a product. I would give that out if their suggestion goes into production. I think these kinds of recognition or tip of the hat to people that help give clout in the Microsoft Community. 

My suggestion is to start having community trophies like they have in XBOX. Currently we have FRP badges, but nothing that recognizes our contribution to the FRP community. My idea would look like this; 1. A person submits 10 Ideas they get an Idea Bronze Trophy on their profile2. One of their ideas is accepted and put into practice they get a Silver Trophy. So on and so forth. What this does is it encourages people to participate in the community and recognizes the superstars! Plus it's a bragging right and it is fun to collect loot if you're a gamer or an engineer in the Microsoft Universe. 

For the MW Deployment Offer is there a way to consolidate the paperwork?  Right now, partners must enter (copy & paste) some of the customer information 4 times (voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email etc.)For example:1) I generate info into the initial SOW 2) Then I have to submit the initial SOW into the portal.  The portal requires that I enter the voucher #, customer name and tenant ID # that is already in the SOW.  Additionally, I have to populate the Program Membership, why can’t it just auto populate?  I only have one program?3) Then I copy and paste the same information from the SOW over to POE 4) Then for the 4th time I required to re-enter information (voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email etc.) into portal coping and pasting the info again from the SOW and POE for final submissions.   A lot of coping and pasting of the same information over and over. Is there any way this can flow into Partner Center (PC) where it can be more automated like other program such as AMM or the MCI offers.  Yes, we may have to submit the initial information, but the tool would allow us to add information such as voucher #, entity name, tenant ID, email & load SOW initially to a claim.  Then when engagements is completed, like other programs such as AMM and MCI it allows partners to send consent emails (directly from PC) as POE which would be great replacement for the final POE document.

Idea:  Have FRP partners present about their practices, FRP business to other partners to showcase solutions, capability, etc. Have new partners joining the community present as well for possible P2P opportunities.  showcase success stories. 

Bring back the original FRP dashboard into partner center.This is an important feature for our program and without it we are blindsided.Please, please, please, whomever is the product manager for this function, we need the original report back, with all the tabs and filters.The data source for this report stopped working since November 2023, and now is back again without the latest refresh and only showing 3 reports.Please do not neglect partners, if the tool is working don't break it!

There are two emails sent to a matched partner.The first is the Referral Notification email alerts a partner to the fact that a customer has been referred. The second email is the Partner Assignment Notification. This email is sent to customer, partner, referral requestor, FPM, and account team. When a partner sends an email to the customer, that email may get quarantined or delivered in to the customer Junk Folder. Therefore, the customer never sees the email.I had a few customers never seeing my emails even after repeated replies to the referral team, account team and/or customer. With email security being implemented by many customers, I suggest to add a statement in the second email recommending the customer to add the Partner contact or partner domain name to their Safe Senders list or check their Junk folder or quarantine folder. This should minimize the problem with missed communications and delays between the customer and partner.  

When a client has Fasttrack vouchers earned via renewals or other means and they're associated to partner could we have a field in FTOP or Partner indicating so? 

A second title field on SharePoint pages, below the existing one, would help organizations that work in two languages. They could enter titles in both languages and make it easier for users who speak or understand a different language or culture than the default one. Users would find and interact with content on the platform more easily

After a partner accepts the customer referral, a "Notice of FastTrack Assignment" email is sent to customer that has the partner's name, email address and domain name. Please add a statement in the Notice of FastTrack Assignment email to include the partner's domain name to the customer's Safe Sender list or Allow list.This will prevent the email sent from the partner to the customer from being quarantined or delivered into the customer's Junk folder and thus the customer never sees the email. I have several customer not receive my emails and had to get my FRM involved to contact either the Microsoft account member of customer to add my email to their Allow list. With heightened email security, some customer email systems are filtering emails and mistakenly being flagged as spam or phishing.

Difficulty with Microsoft 365 licenses, lack of clear information, very high prices.We had a case with a customer who purchased an Upgrade license from Windows 11 home to Windows Pro. When we went to upgrade, the system did not allow us to apply the key to the Windows that the customer has available (home version). We had to download the media and install Windows Pro.This means that the rule of having a home version to be able to purchase the Upgrade is commercial only. Technically, it's not compatible?!

Active user consumption control rules (MAU) that end up creating difficulties for us to work with customers. Unfortunately, due to various situations that are beyond our control, many customers reduce their consumption or even stop using the solutions. The problem is that we have had big problems with this, as our numbers end up being hugely negative.This ends up creating difficulties for us to remain active in Microsoft programs.

Please distribute the Partner Enablement Newsletter via E-Mail to Partners that have signed up for it. Or if this is already the case, let me know where I can sign up for this Newsletter ;)Thanks Indeed!Julius 

Can a column (non-calculated) be added int he FastTrack Insights area to reference the High-Water mark dollar value for each workload per user value under the FY23 program e.g. Intune -- $1, MDE -- $3 and so on.

We are a global company and a have a presence in Spain. There are other languages in Spain other than Spanish.Catalan is one out of four official languages in Spain. Approximately 40% of the Spanish population live in areas with two official languages. Approximately 11 million people live in the Catalan language area. In offices and schools, Catalan is the dominant language.Please add Catalan language to the list of languages served so that this population can be included.

in FY23 referrals and RFA we used to get notifications email with the details of the RFA.Can this be replicated in FY24 (in addition to the current updated process)?Having the details helps since Partner Center has so many issues and it never works as expected since the new RFA process was introduced. in addition, the email helped FRPs give validation of who we are and not having to reach out to the client "out of the blue". With the email, we can reply directly to the client and use the RFA details to validate our credentials as FRPs  

We've found that obtaining an "acceptable" signature is getting increasingly more difficult, to the point where the approval team in Partner Center does not accept DocuSigned SOWs. Understand needing to verify customer signature, but it's become a lot harder to find an acceptable method, and we have to go back and add additional verification (email where customer sends back signed SOW), which is not realistic for the team to go back and find with a large network of sellers. Curious to see if other partners are running into this issue, and if there's a potential for some flexibility on what's accepted as a "valid signature" when claiming? 

Going to Partner Center > Insights > FastTrack > Referrals > customer name > Notes History, it shows the notes with no formatting:NOTE: replaced customer information with xxxxx characters "10/30/2023 - xxxx@microsoft.com RFA # 83643. 10/30/2023; Request approved for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management. Assigned to FTCQ FRP • EDU Licenses: No• Nonprofit Licenses: No• Non-FRP Engaged: No• FRP involved: No• GCC: No    Partner/MCS listed in RFA: false   Contacts:   • Customer contact information: xxxxx.xxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxx.xxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567 • Requestor contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxx@contoso.com, 1801234567     Service Location and Language: • City: xxxxxx• State: Illinois• Country: united states• FT Supported Language: english (united states)   The following entitlement counts reflect the entitlements confirmed by the RFA eligibility engine. These entitlements may differ from FTOP due to latency or other issues but please move forward with the RFA based on the eligibility verified by the On-Demand Team.   RFA Approved Workloads:   • Purview DLM: xxxx Entitlements   RFA name: Request M365 assistance: Email retention policy setup   Additional information that may impact the project: We plan on implementing Email retention polices for the company and need help to ensure we are setting them up correctly.   RFA Form URL: "     An improved formatting would make this information easier to read:10/30/2023 -xxxxxx@microsoft.comRFA # . 10/30/2023; Request approved for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management.  Assigned to FTCQ FRP • EDU Licenses: No• Nonprofit Licenses: No• Non-FRP Engaged: No• FRP involved: No• GCC: No    Partner/MCS listed in RFA: false    Contacts:   • Customer contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567 • Requestor contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567      Service Location and Language: • City: xxxxx• State: Illinois• Country: united states• FT Supported Language: english (united states)    The following entitlement counts reflect the entitlements confirmed by the RFA eligibility engine. These entitlements may differ from FTOP due to latency or other issues but please move forward with the RFA based on the eligibility verified by the On-Demand Team.    RFA Approved Workloads:   • Purview DLM: xxxx Entitlements   RFA name: Request M365 assistance: Email retention policy setup    Additional information that may impact the project: We plan on implementing Email retention polices for the company and need help to ensure we are setting them up correctly.   RFA Form URL:    

When reviewing the customer referral in Partner Center > Insights > FastTrack > Referrals > customer name > AU% tab. The screen states:"There is currently no Active Usage Data for this tenant.To view the Active Usage Data, please visit the FRP Dashboard" Going to the Partner's FRP Dashboard, the customer is not even listed thus no AU data is available. I suspect this is because the partner does not have an approved CPOR association to view the Active Usage data. If so, the verbiage should state that the AU% is not available until a CPOR association is established.   However, it would be best to have the AU% data available and visible to provide insight to the customer deployment status.

The referral process is telling a customer, that we have been engaged for a long time and have CPOR for the workloads in question, that we are not endorsed for these workloads. If we have a CPOR claim, the process should stop there, the customer gets referred back to us. Also, during the request the customer asked us t be the designated partner. That should also bypass the referral workflow that is in place now. We were always told that the customer has the right to choose their partner. I believe the correct order should be:CPORWhat the customer wantsThe referral workflowAlso you should improve the language used in the program, it sounds very negative to partners. Customers new to FT with no valid CPOR claim should go straight to #3.

Endorsement model: Smaller partners are not able to obtain as many Endorsements even though they may be qualified to do the work. Steeves and Associates is an example of this where they have strong competencies and can deliver in many workloads, however they only qualify for ACM.  

Reporting on Front Line Worker Teams in Partner Center and/or FRP Dashboard

Communication of change in benefit FY23/24

I'd like to make a suggestion to create a glossary that is shareable with the partners that would include Microsoft abbreviations. Even though in some of the calls these are provided at the beginning, for partners watching recordings, and not actively participating in chats it can be quite hard to keep up with them.  As far as "what should be included" is considered...my personal opinion is that there is nothing of sensitive importance when it comes to these abbreviations. A revised version of the existing glossary could be added here:Home  · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com)

It is great to have a single portal to see the status of all FastTrack Vouchers.We would like to share our thoughts on enhancing the View interface with:- A filter or search option to select specific Customers or VoucherID's- Showing the Expiration Date- Showing the Voucher Amount- Link to the templates to use For the Export function it would be great if following data could be added to the exported data:- Customer Country- TenantID / TPID- Expiration Date- Voucher Amount- Submitter Name / Email On top of that we would like to have a second way to redeem vouchers, based on a Form, as not all our sellers can be granted access to his portalm, due to the size of our organisation. (There is a specific Idea for this already).

Claim IDs are not visible in the PowerBI FRP Dashboard. The dashboard is a great tool; however it lacks the Claim ID which is as important in order to fully reconcile the registrations.  

Having to submit all vouchers via the M365 Portal creates a HUGE bottleneck for a company the size of Avanade.We have sellers al over that need to utilize these vouchers, and we cannot grant access to the portal to everyone (as the process is not very straight forward and requires additional approval from both sides).  Are there plans to revert back to the old way of using the form to submit?   

Hi Team, M365 Customer Success Offer - Customers who own Office 365 licenses (E1, E3 and E5) are matched with an eligible FastTrack Ready Partner (FRP) and are granted the right to receive a voucher with a maximum value. But how partner get to know if any of our existing customers are eligible for this offer or not, It would be great if this insight is available so that we can connect with Microsoft Team for the nominating eligible clients.  

Ability to see eligible vouchers for customers where we have CPOR registrations.  

Customer found an bug in the LAPS Preview intune policy.  Currently they have a case open but the main issue is that the reporting is faulty for manual rotation of the local admin password.  The device status shows pending but under the device overview toolbar it will pop up a blue bar that says active which in testing means it has in fact rotated the password but without a lot of testing nothing states that would be the case.  

Hi,I would like to be able to download, to Excel, all individuals and their certifications.From all the Solutionsareas and to one Excelfile.Now I have to make several downloads and then merge them together manually. Thanks!Best regardsJenny HidegårdExobe ABSweden

​​​​​​​Hi Team  The current UX for the Partner Operational Support Partner Support · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com) is not very handy and it would be great if we could see improvements in future:  1.) Currently there is no function to put someone in CC. So if someone logging a ticket gets on sick leave there is no possibility for a colleague to take over. So an additional field with people being informed and able to access the ticket would be helpful. 2.) There is no possibility to escalate a ticket. As global FRP Admin of my company I am supporting our Operations Team and quite often need to jump in to help them to get things moving. Currently I have to send screenshots of the conversation to my FPM, which is very clumsy and not helpful.  Thank you very much for thinking this over.  BR Teresa 

Its very clumsy and difficult to identify Fasttrack payments (non OSU). A good idea would be either - - include the Transaction ID from the statement in the payment textOR- include the MS invoice number in the statements (because this is being sent in the text of the payments)With that you will avoid a lot of questions when payments have been done and when they are received. 

Today, it is impossible to filter FRP Dashboards via MPN ID. We operate globally, and we use many MPN IDs to register clients according to many factors. 

The FRP Dashboard view in FCU has a smaller scale and size that less comfortable to navigate the report. A full screen option would be helpful to improve the visibility and usability of the report.

Avatars and Filters are great consumer features, but on EDU and Corporate environments they are not welcome and can easily disturb meetings. We would like to request policies on the Admin center to be able to disable or restrict the use of those components per group or tenant level.

A customer would like to forward incoming calls (or not) based on their origin. For example, forward if the call origin is external, but not if its origin is internal. The current state is forward all or nothing, which is not the workflow some of their C-Suite members want.

As FRP we receive referrals from MSFT.In order to be able to receive only these referrals that are relevant of best fit, we would like to be able to select or deselect criteria when to receive these referrals, like:- customer segmentation- customer size- customer workloads (like endorsements) Having these option would improve the customer experience as only the referrals that are best fit are handed over to the FRP.

We would like to highlight the excellent work carried out by FTM Nelson Villarreal at the head of FastTrack partner management. His dedication has helped us a lot in the evolution of the team and in the conquest of new challenges.

Talking to the Mateus Group team, we received feedback that the FastTrack program allowed the project that had been on hold for almost 2 years to finally be carried out. The use of the benefit and also the support of FunctionOne's technical team allowed the difficulties to be overcome and the main objective, which was to create collaborative communication for the entire organization, to be achieved.

I am writing to bring your attention to an issue that we have been facing for several years in the FRP dashboard/PC. It has come to our attention that some customers are showing 100% usage, even though they have not deployed the corresponding workloads to that extent. This issue has hindered our efforts as partners to drive customer usage and has resulted in us being unable to receive incentives for the work we do. To overcome this challenge, we request more precise and accurate usage numbers for these customers.

Hi, I wanted to add couple points of my own as well as relay feedback from one of my engineers.  1) Wizards could use the relevant architectural frameworks or infographics to help customer understand how the different services interconnect. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/cybersecurity-reference-architecture/mcra2) There could also be a blade in the wizard for FRPs to be guided as well.3) what would be great is if Kickoffs and Priorities of workloads could all be conducted from the wizards. Where we track that call and others right there in the Wizard. If parts of it were relayed to the Playbook and Partner Center. . .that would be the future.  4) Old engineer's feedback. “Here would be my Intune feedback.  Have two separate sections of the Wizard, one for "Planning" and one for "Execution". These are almost there now, but they are not clearly defined. Separate Planning\Execution stages better. Align these with your Microsoft Docs reference collection. Add hours or time to complete tasks. Example for Planning: Determine Objectives Inventory Devices Windows 10 iOS\iPadOS MacOS Android Personal vs BYOD (can lead directly to Device Enrollment Restriction Profile Enrollment Strategies (currently not covered at all) On personal devices consider app configuration policies and app protection policies (this is the appropriate place to put these items for discussion. Not just out there randomly.) Cost and Licensing Existing Policies and Infrastructure Create a Roll-Out Plan & Communications Use your tools to automate the creation of email templates and timelines Once done, users will benefit from this a massive amount. Not even discussed in Fast Track Wizard. We (C1) provide a link to docs currently with almost no hep other than example templates. Support Help Desk and End User Add this to planning tasks. Super important. It's like we ran out of steam by the end and went... "ahhh, figure it out for yourselves". Example Execution Steps Set Intune as MDM Authority (or at least provide PROOF in the Wizard that this is already done) Validate Custom Domain Name Add "Wizard" or "Pilot" groups - if you can automatically add Configs and Compliance Policies, you can add groups, all based on the choices the client made above. <Prefix>-Windows Devices <Prefix>-Android Devices <Prefix>-iOS Devices <Prefix>-MacOS Devices There is more, but let's see if this points them in the right direction.

Hello,I would like to request a report to view my organization users that acquired a sales or Tech badges around Teams rooms and meetings. This will allow us to track and ensure we meet the program requirements around badges.

When accessing the portal you have to give permissions and get a screen that tells you to approve the permissions request for the app from an unverified publisher. I would be great if Microsoft could ensure that the Portal is coming from a verified publisher. A security conscious organization might not be happy with allowing access to apps from un unverified publisher.

Customer are purchasing P2 and E5 components, and going through an exercise to enable and adopt the workloads.  There is a lot of guidance on hoe to implement it, but very little focus on operation guides and day to day use of the tools. Where can we find resources for the IT Pros who will inherit the project deliverables and operate the solutions?

Licensing is getting increasingly complex. The only source to help is not hosted by Microsoft M365maps.com When will Microsoft publish something similar, official, with announcements and warning of upcoming and recent changes to licenses. One big example is the mess with Defender for Endpoints for Server -> Now Defender for Cloud Server, except if you are in EDU which still can buy the old one! Where do we find official information about it, it doesn't seem to be anywhere!Intune premium add-ons... bad idea

When another partner files a claim, the contact person listed as a partner is notified. However, it would be beneficial to have a filter in the "customer claims" tab, such as "needs action," that allows us to track customers who require additional information and ensures that everyone in the organization is notified. This would help us keep track of the necessary steps and information needed to resolve claims efficiently.

It would be great if the CPOR Claim could be edited after approved or in the case of a Partner Conflict to allow the original claiming partner to remove a workload that might be in question. I've seen a few times now where multiple Teams workloads are claimed under one Association, however over time another partner has a competing claim for one of the many workloads included.  Rather than cancelling the entire original partner claim, it would be ideal if the Partner could evaluate and possibly deselect a workload if they believe in fact they are not driving adoption for it anymore.  That would save a TON of time, effort and likely cost to Microsoft if it didn't trigger a third unnecessary claim process that is trying to then re-claim the workloads that are still technically covered under the original association.  That's a waste of time and big annoyance for both the original Partner and Customers that are trying to figure out what all the claiming nonsense is all about.

These days, it seems like every week we are getting notified of another claim that is being contested as another partner has submitted a CPOR Association request for a workload we had previously secured. If I understand how it works, if the new partner shows adequate POE that is newer than the POE we provided, then we become disassociated and lose the AU growth for that customer and workload.   I'd like to suggest an alterative approach: AU Growth Sharing for 1-year to a maximum of two partners It seems crazy that two partners aren't both rewarded with AU Growth incentive and metrics if they both in fact helped the customer drive adoption. Rather than only having one Partner of Record, Microsoft should allow two partners to both share in the credit and track the AU growth accordingly for a period of at least 1-year from the time the original POE was accepted. That way, the Partner isn't negatively impacted with its Solutions Designation score if a new partner also joins into the mix to support the customer.  If two or three years has passed, its highly unlikely the partner is still engaged. But if it is within 1 year, then that original partner should still share in the benefit of the AU Growth attribution.  

I would like to issue a certificate as FRP.We are sometimes asked for documents to prove that our partners are FRP, so we would be very grateful if we had official documents from Microsoft.

Dear all,since the move of the FastTrack Knowledge Base I am searching the Roadmap information for M365 Services which used to be great and very handy for our consultants. They used to be behind the following link: https://fasttrack365-kb.powerappsportals.com/?id=KB-02592Am I the only one who misses them? Any reason why they are gone?Thank You :)Julius

These are the questions Softchoice shared before the call - we only got through a few then SME George Waikem responded as seen hereQuestions for VIVA SessionOut of the four VIVA workloads, where should we start the conversation? AnsweredHow and when should we connect to the other VIVA workloads to ensure that customers are not losing sight of additional VIVA Workloads and are not getting overwhelmed with the amount of information all at once? AnsweredWhat are the excellent scoping questions for a VIVA engagement, especially when the customer approached for a non-VIVA engagement? Customer industry Current situation and challenges Customer Goals Success criteria VIVA licenses VIVA modules deploying Deployment approach (pilot group of users/Size) Deployment deliverables Deployment blockers or risks Deployment dates (timeline), constraints Scope of work Different stakeholders Roles and permissionsHow to make sure we are inviting the right audience for the conversation?Usually, the first kikoff call starts with the PM or whomever is leading the project on the customer’s end, including any other team members who would be interested/involved in onboarding process. After the initial call, you’ll have more understanding on the customer’s scope (as mentioned in the previous question) then you can target/include the right audience and technical people from both ends (a Global Admin, a Teams Admin and so on ..)How is Microsoft approaching Viva Adoption for Customers who already have licenses?The CSAM/Account team/CSM can answer this questionCan we see a demo or step-by-step approach and prepare accordingly to present to the customer?The CSM team conducts VIVA Demos prior to the deployment stage. Joanne can work on including you on those demosIs there an internal push @ Microsoft to send more Viva opportunities via referrals?Joanne can take care of this questionWhat are the benefits statements we can use to drive the adoption?Employee Experience and Engagement | Microsoft VivaIn what ways can we bundle the Viva conversation with other workloads to push for more adoption?VIVA is built on top of our M365 workloads/services, and this is how you can rely on different VIVA pre-requisites (SharePoint Online, Teams, Exchange Online, Yammer, PowerBI etc.) in order to bundle the Viva conversation with other workloads to push for more adoption.

Team, up unitl i think the beginning of 2023, we were able to delivery PIE security everywhere engagements... we are an M365 partner with 5 badges, security being one of them.. but that doesnt seem to matter for the security everywher program as you now have to be an MSSP to delivery that engagement. We find that a bit ridiculous in that we are always helping clients move to e5, EMS, etc.. and have built a team around that... we are a Professional Services company and an SI (as well as a CSP), but we are in the business of implementation and integration, not the types of services provided by an MSSP.  our M365 clients rely on us to help them make decisions around upgrading, replaceing competitive products, etc.. and they dont think they should have to pay for that as they consider it microsoft presales work... but now i cant accomodate those types of engagement sfor them... we need to be able to! 

there are often times that i want to chat with 4 or 5 people on our team, and on a specific topic.  currently, teams allows you to name that group in that chat, but i may want to chat with the same 4 or 5 people a month form now too, on anotehr topic.  right now, the only way we can have a contextual chat, is to set upa  meeting, and have a chat in that meetings chat.. would be great to be able to give a chat stream a name

we ahve been doing business with one of our clients, an over 60000 person organization, and had been their DPOR even back in the day.  Recenlty, another parnter must be doing some work in there for someone, and submitted a CPOR claim for SharePoint and Teams.  Since we have been working with them since Moss 2007, we  have not been submitting new claims wevery time we got a new project with them; but, when another partner submitted a claim the client was reassigned to them... without anyone asking us or the client what their preference was...  we work directly with the collaboration team at the client, and they had no idea who else may have submitted anyhing, but likely just a dpeartment with whom they were doing some work. when a partner submits a cliam and anothere parnter is already on the claim, there should be some kind of discussion between the microsoft program team and the two partners before just arbitrailiy making the siwtch 

the engine that you run behind the scenes when we as partners submit a client for workshop eligibility is great.. but when it comes back with a workshop as being ineligbile, it would be great if partners could submit for an exception to the rejection.  sometimes the numberic analysis you do and the customer requirements dont make good sales sense.. for example, we couldnt get a client a Secuirty worshiop for intune deployement because they didnt have any exchange installed... well they are a gmail client, and want to deploy intune first, and then eventually move gmail over...  would be great if we as partners could submit our own exceptions

What are some of the challenges you have encountered while deploying Teams Phone? Currently, toll free numbers for auto attendants; and the mess of information surrounding Communications Credits, Telco Pay-As-You-Go, and NCE licensing.  There is some malfunction getting 800 numbers under NCE, and no clear doco to guide us. What are some of the key benefits you have found to using Teams Phone compared to other products? That it works with M365 without much complexity is great. What are the top guidance topics that customers need during deployment of Teams Phone? Right now, auto attendants and toll free numbers. What is a key feature that other platforms have that Teams Phone does not currently have? Integrated contact center.  Clients are disappointed they have to go to third party integrations for this. What is the most common deployed scenario for Teams Phone? SMB and simple phone needs. Who beneficial are the IPE guides and how would you improve them? Unfamiliar with the phrase ‘IPE guides’.  Learn.microsoft.com is very beneficial.  One knock: I appreciated the feature-complete checkbox tables that used to exist in some MS doco such as the service descriptions.  Those changed to a more conversational format, and are not as helpful. Has the customer voiced any frustrations with the FastTrack delivery model? Frustration is brought into the motion when Microsoft sellers (or by proxy our Insight sellers) tout FT as being a replacement for services, or somehow that we’ll put hands on their production environment.  Once the FT team get to the opp, that turns into a failure, however large or small. How many customers are showing interest in Teams Phone Mobile? Not exposed to much client clamor yet.

The Ability to take ANY SIP phone would be an advantage.  Even the odd vendors that have proprietary interfaces.

The ability to connect an analog or SIP device without incurring cost for devices that do not need to dial outbound or receive external calls.  Customers already have to pay for common area phones, MTRS etc.  Having to pay a shared device license for overhead paging on the SIP Gateway just adds to the cost that may deter companies from Teams Phone.

Logging of SBC traffic on the Teams side for direct routing.  Currently we have no way to get logs of SBC connectivity/traffic except from the Microsoft support which takes time and usually an escalation

Have had a few partners voice their concern on qualifying for the partner of the Year Award based on the requirements set forth. Specifically addressing the Badges, since they are not a requirement stated and/or noted in the T&Cs.

For number porting, I understand most losing carriers won’t port after hours but we should be able to select a requested time and get a list of possible times if that doesn’t work.  Currently we can only pick business hours and if that time slot doesn’t work the port is automatically set for a time that does work.  This may work for MS and the carrier but not for the customer.

Please stop the ask for call quality feedback.  Very annoying. – Give us the ability to change the % of prompts like we could with Skype.

There is a disconnect between the soft client and physical phones.  Caller ID from Queues and Attendants don’t show up in the new “lightweight” experience.  When that’s disabled it tends to show the first Attendant or queue instead of the one that passed the call to the user like the soft client.

The ability to delegate call queue and auto attendant configuration to non-admin users.  This was something mentioned a long time ago but I haven’t seen it deployed yet.  We get this question all the time because XYZ PBX allows it and customers are used to it.

Open up number ports to be real world time slots, not just “business hours” that don’t work for anyone but Microsoft.  We need to specify what date and time we want the ports to start.  Some nebulous target that may or may not happen is not cutting it and causes customer sat issues that are totally out of our control and totally in MSFT control

I am seeing other vendors (like Cisco) include valuable insights into their "control hub" which provides power usage and draw for their room kit and even home managed room kit. The ability to review and even schedule the shut down of equipment like Teams Rooms over weekends or holidays would be really valuable as would ability to monitor total power consumption of managed devices. 

Make the backend bulletproof.  Delays in answering, setting up media flows, switching screens in Teams client etc are not good.

​​​​​​​Integrated contact center.  Clients are disappointed they have to go to third party integrations for this.

SMB and more simple deployments are their highest use case.  

​​​​​​​Clients are disappointed they have to go to third party integrations for this.

Currently, toll free numbers for auto attendants; and the mess of information surrounding Communications Credits, Telco Pay-As-You-Go, and NCE licensing.  There is some malfunction getting 800 numbers under NCE, and no clear documentation to guide us. 

Partner feedback: "Licensing is too confusing. Lack of parity between GUI and PowerShell options in migration scenarios. Usage reports too limited or difficult to interpret.​" 

Partner Feedback: Most customers are comfortable with setup and administration. Some frustration over lack of PIM feature in P1 SKU​. Repeated product name changes cause a lot of confusion because old and new are often spoken interchangeably. 

MDO feedback from Partner: Licensing is too complicated. SPF, DKIM, DMARC not well understood. Language used to describe anti-spoofing tends to confuse in general. Repeated product name changes cause a lot of confusion because old and new are often spoken interchangeably.​ Product marketing messages out of step with the realities of real-world implementation.  Customer perception is often that these are “set it and forget it” services, leaving them unprepared for how much they have to learn for maximum ROI. 

MDE: Complicated licensing model makes it difficult to understand what's included. Product name changes is difficult to keep-up, making it hard to help customers anticipate what they have versus what they need. Partner: Product marketing messages out of step with the realities of real-world implementation. Customer perception is often that these are “set it and forget it” services, leaving them unprepared for how much they have to learn for maximum ROI.​  

We need to find out in general what to do if not all users of a tenant should be licensed and benefit from MDI. Is there a way to realize this in a compliant way at all? Everything I know so far is that efforts should be taken to limit the service benefits to licensed users. (see Screenshot) But I do not know what this means and what these efforts could or should look like. Anyone else experiencing the same problem here? 

Submitted on behalf of Angi, Scott and Jude (eGroup Enabling Technology)  Customers are commonly purchasing E5 in several different scenarios. - Targeting some non-security functionality. Driving awareness and intent for P2 workloads is key to driving AU with these customers. This was not in the standard strategy for a deployment project but will be moving forward. Ultimately customers don't know what they own and it's on the FRP to intentionally drive awareness with the customers, and then intent before they can put these into action for deployment.  - Being upsold from multi-line LSPs and purchasing E5 along with "best in class" products for security and identity. This is particularly challenging since some customers have a mindset of "best in class over best in platform." So unseating the competing products proves to be a long term effort since significant time and money were invested at the time of purchase and are typically quick to deployment since they are not bundled and only do one to a few things. LSP's are incented to stack licensing and focus on best in class rather than best in platform. 

Are your Delivery teams ramped up to deliver Viva modules? Yes,  PSIT offers Viva Academy. Plans to leverage MCI, Wizards, QTM’s where applicable. Are you making CPOR claims for Viva? Not yet Do you have the right resources in place internally and do you need tech go to from Microsoft ( SME’s) yes internal, now need Microsoft Resources.  (note:  I have since provided Angel Vargas and his team as resources) Any Product level feedback for our engineering team? Not yet Delivery:  Any blockers from a product perspective or challenges around FastTrack motion for delivering Viva?  Anything to be tweaked or fixed to make it easier to sell/deploy more?  Possibly Licensing. Customers unaware that Viva workloads are including in their current M365 plans. Sales:  Any blockers in articulating the value? Any customer pushback in value/approving budget? Is it too expensive? Why does the customer not have intent? Sales/Customers unaware that Viva workloads are including in their current M365 plans.

There is no discernible protection for a partner after you provide the benefit. If we execute a justification exercise for SCI, or migrating to Teams or Intune, we should be able to maintain the customer association for a period of time. We are being usurped by LARs as the Partner Center criteria for picking between contested associations is a mystery and decided by uneducated, non-Microsoft employees. Partner Support is terrible, staffed by a team that has no clue what they are doing or how partners need Partner Center.

We have not seen a single referral to us that had an incentive behind it in our 2 years with the program. We have only had one non-customer referral that actually responded to our reply and despite being told by FastTrack that the educational institution was indeed eligible for partner incentive (we asked because we knew they were not), we found out after executing the benefit that no incentive would be paid. For the referrals coming from existing customers, it is obvious that Microsoft Sales teams (or CSAs in particular) just point everything to FastTrack partner for free work even when situations are clearly not FastTrack eligible. Microsoft is burdening partners since their technical teams continue to be less and less useful. The FastTrack team seems to be co-conspirators in this operation and seem to not want to protect their partners any more than the balance of the Microsoft program. 

For Engineering: No demand:  Legal customers are still on premise /Unfamiliar with the valueFrom Delivery: Unfamiliar with valueFrom Sales: Low/no demand:  Legal customers are still on premise. Unsure of the value and who to speak to about Viva- Possibly unsure about included workloads in M365 plan

Feedback for Engineering:  EmergingFeedback from Delivery: All good with cloud delivered phone concept until we get to Conference Rooms.  There is too much complexity here.Feedback from Sales: All good with cloud delivered phone concept until we get to Conference Rooms.  There is too much complexity here.  Customers spend big $$$ on Conference Room equipment and Sales is unsure how to justify moving to Teams Phones System and conversation.   

Feedback for Engineering: Policies can be added easilyFeedback from Sales: Sales/Marketing Problem- not enough exposure and product awareness being put out there. 

Delivery and Sales feedback: Purview = lack of MSFT-led use cases for legal (vertical).  

Engineering feedback: Difficult to get customers to rip and replace existing solution because combined with EXO, protection is viewed as inferior.Delivery Feedback: EXO/MDO combination needs to be at par with competing solutions.  Sales Feedback: Lots of Competition.  Tough to get them to rip and replace solutions that are deemed superior to EXO/MDO combination. Even if included in M365 plan. 

The new process is pretty simple and I am happy w/ the changes that were made.  It is a huge improvement over the previous process.  Kudos on that.My only feedback is that if the partner already has some workloads claimed for a customer and they are claiming additional workloads, the workloads claimed previously shows as claimed by another partner, when the other partner is themselves.  In my opinion, if the partner already has claimed workloads, it should just show the CLAIM ID by those services.  If a DIFFERENT PARTNER has claims for those workloads, then the previous statement would be accurate.

Notifications to be sent to users when usage milestones is reached and when payment is processing -> done. Would be nice, so no need to come every week and check manually. 

This seems like a constant piece of feedback, but maybe putting it on this board will finally make a difference. "Proof of Execution" means that you have finished the project/task/assignment/etc. in 100% of the cases when those words are used, including dozens used by Microsoft. Proof of Execution is a document for ECIF as well as the MCI program and both have the customer completing and signing a document after the partner has done work.  For some reason, FastTrack wants to use the term Proof of Execution for a document required of the partner prior to doing any work for the customer. This leads to confusion and the customer not understanding why "this time it is different" and not wanted to sign something that seems to indicate that the partner has completed something when no work has started. "FastTrack Engagement Form" or just about anythign would be better. When this feedback was presented at various FastTrack Community Calls and other live events, the partners were told the document would only have "POE" on it and that it stood for "Proof of Engagement" - that is not what has happened. "Proof of Execution" is written right across the title bar. This needs to be changed.

VR has identified a lot of opportunities for 3rd-party takeouts so they have developed laser focused sales materials for relationship managers to leverage to help drive E5 S&I workloads. The below is from Norm who also send the documents he developed to help with this. The key feedback here is we have a lot of competitive products that partners need to be proactive and prepared for value discussions (beyond licensing consolidation) to get traction with customers.  The Security Infographic that I mentioned that was a joint effort between Sheryl’s Digital Strategy team who execute our Solution Assessment deliverables and our Marketing team. This references the specific capabilities across the Security assessments we look at for 3rd-party takeouts. We have gotten super positive feedback from the Microsoft field on the value of this. The superset of the current pitch deck we use when we are meeting Specialists from the STUs and CSUs. Love to get your feedback on this. Typically we’ll focus on a few slides based on their interest.

Challenges faced by partner to acquire Advanced Specializations in time, in order not to affect their current flow and distribution of new RFAs.

I have a request regarding the service usage page of the FRP dashboard.Previously, I could see Service Usage for all customers.From this month it seems to have a filter with "IsCurrentMonth" = "true".I want to check the Service Usage of all customer like before.Please consider making it possible to check all customer information.

The link to the FastTrack Remediation Checklist is no longer working.  We are receiving the below error. It was mentioned that the RCL is being removed from the FRP program entirely to be replaced by the Advanced Deployment Guides.  Please do not do this.  The RCL is essential for the Assessment meeting and is a great conversation starter about workloads customers are not familiar with and upgrade (upsell) options.  We rely quite heavily on the RCL.  Though, we also walk customers through the wizards, we hold an Assessment meeting prior to any Deployment Guide tours.

Some technical challenges with respect to Viva Connections and assigning a new home site. A lot of customers already invested in other LMS tools which makes Viva Learning a difficult pivot.  Most of the IT teams are not that excited with Viva products. Some of the customers still do not see the value or the ones who see the value are using other more mature products. NOTE: a good roadmap on the product is required to convince them the maturing coming to the product.​.  The right audience is required for initial conversation and most importantly when we are executing the workshops. The customer must be at a certain level of maturity and must be using and consuming Office 365 workload extensively.​​

Challenges faced by customers during the Number porting process. Customers complaining about some discrepancies appearing during the usage of Auto attendants.  Intuitive interface. It is easy to explain to customers how to use Teams' voice features daily.  Not difficult to convince organizations which adopted already Teams to switch to reunite in one tool Collaboration and Voice features​​​

IRM has not penetrated as much as we would have liked to increase the delivery and provide more data​.

Very powerful product especially in terms of customization. Customers are amazed by the ability to create custom Sensitive info types relevant for their organization.  Easy to walk them through the configuration and provide explanations. Difficult to convince organizations with budget constraints to acquire the licenses including the top MIP features.​​​

Most of the customers have baseline policies for office running. Very few are tailoring it. Recommendations coming from the Secure Score are helpful to improve the policies for customers​. A lot of customers are using third party tools like Proofpoint, they are switching to MDO most of the time when their contract with that vendor is up for renewal.​​

Lack of Server OS specific option for AV,EDR policies has been raised many times.  Lack of testing environment for MacOS/iOS is a big challenge when trying to help customers during deployment.  Good reviews, still needs awareness around products adoption with OS other than Windows​.​​

Generally, there are no complaints about the functionality of the product apart from the time it takes to sync.  Conditional Access and AD connect are the most prevalent places where we run into challenges sometimes. Lack of awareness regarding PIM, Access management reviews. Sales may be not talking about it. ​​​

Customer Blocker: Customers are not entertaining the license workloads. Any traction with Viva is with Viva connections. Pressure from Microsoft to create new offers around new modules which require licensing purchases from the customer. Doing plenty of demos and having customer conversations and not going anywhere yet. Demand for the other workloads isn't here right now. Where are partners seeing success? Where are they getting traction?  Seeded value: Not really doing go back campaigns on Viva today but can do tomorrow. RFA Demand from the FRP side is coming for security. Only received one Viva RFA. Customers don't know what they need to use and for what. Just like with files years ago (when do we use OneDrive, SP and Teams? Was the challenge in the past, it's similar with Viva)  Are Insights and Connections opportunities generating more licensing opportunities? Lots of interest in Engage and Power Apps (these opps are going hand in hand). Huge FLW play with Connections (have a win wire in flight for this). Started as a FL workshop. Evolving quickly into security and 10 other directions.

Viva: Product Feedback: Will want a SME for Connections when they make progress in the future. It's a very heavy lift. Connections takes significant effort when a customer's SP is not set-up properly. Customer Blocker: Savvy leaders know that big value is locked behind premium licensing so customers don't want to pull the trigger till they can go all in and realize all the value. Completing a POC with a customer is key to making traction here. Customer Blocker: Technology innovators are interested, and CIOs are where traction is being made. IT teams are overwhelmed and don't want another thing on their plate. Blocking internally to the HR decision makers as it's just going to come back and put more work on their plates.  Customer Blocker: Customers have no idea that Viva is part of their licensing SKUs so they Customer Blocker: Had a customer with a competiting learning management tool (safeschool) already in place, Microsoft product is more expensive and deployment costs didn't make a lot of business sense.

 ... no feedback because none of my customers use this in any meaningful way because there’s no drive for it and no reason to start.  To the customer .... there is no  perceived value. Even its existence is not well known. No sales, no marketing, no clear issues being resolved. And the workshops to introduce this to customers asks some very stressed out people in very stressful positions from around the company (HR, legal, and IT) to take multiple days out of their time to learn about a product they haven’t heard of and see no inherent value in. Very little sales effort from the Microsoft field sales teams. The demand in the market is just not there. 

The product works very well but getting users onboarded with the phone porting is a nightmare. And it’s not just because of the external phone vendor but the phone port team does not make it easy on us at all. How are we supposed to migrate users to an entire new tenant when the phone portion comes down to last minute cancelations on Fridays with no support until Monday?  The hardest sell around Teams Phone isn’t the migration but the perceived uptime. Getting users to go cloud-only for Teams Phone is asking them to trust MS to be up all the time. And the perception is that it is not. Why drop their phone vendor and SBC at all when calling plans for int’l are $20+ per person without guarantees for uptime and quality product updates?   

A few customers have strange issues where it comes to expectations around a uniform user experience. Every few weeks it’s different, especially with accessing or sending encrypted emails. Will it open in the browser? Will it send a link? Why is the behavior from the SAME SENDERS so different? It’s frustrating because this should be simple and easy.  Customers expect the same results every single time they do the same action. When demoing IRM and documenting results and then the results change a week later and no one knows why? That’s a very hard sell.  

This is the most confusing product that you have because it is never clear what will work, what is deprecated, and that’s on top of it already being a very difficult process for the customers to deal with. The on-prem scanner especially is a nightmare.  Even if the product were easy to deploy it requires so much manual work and analysis to scan ongoing exfiltrating data and historical data. It takes months just to get to the point where a customer can decide what to do and that’s BEFORE changing user behaviors. And the product itself has an identity crisis. What’s been deprecated? What’s replacing it? How the heck are you supposed to report into a SIEM when log analytics is deprecated? This is a very frustrating product to sell. 

The product works but customers are still unhappy when something slips through and is ZAP’d later. Also the third-party competitors are evolving and getting more clever with their offerings in this space quicker than MS is.  It’s getting to the point where all the add-ins from ProofPoint can be more valuable than simple phish, attachment, and URL defenses. If the customer has any interest in all the DNS-related pieces that fall into mail flow too MS will lose that business every time. Consider dealing with hosted SPF for instance. If a customer is full on ProofPoint they won’t give it up readily anymore. 

MDE has some confusing aspects to it when it comes to its cross integrations with other modules like MIP. It doesn’t feel as robust as 3rd party competition. Reporting isn’t as robust.  If it were easier to run in parallel with Crowdstrike it would be easier to sell. If it were easier to see robust reporting and graphs it would be an easier sell.  

There are no complaints for AADP generally. Very accessible and powerful with an easy price point.  No particular blockers for this product. Conditional Access sells P1. Automations sell P2.  

[Machine translation] You can check the "Unclaimed & Milestone Opportunity" tab of FRP Dashboad to see the potential incentives for Unclaimed.We believe that being able to confirm incentive expectations for claimed workloads will make it easier to follow up with customers.Please consider adding more functions.  Original text世話になっております。FRP Dashboadの「Unclaimed &Milestone Opportunity」タブで、Unclaimed のインセンティブ見込みを確認できると思いますが、Claimed ワークロードについてもインセンティブ見込みを確認できると、お客様へのフォローアップ等が実施しやすくなると考えております。ぜひ機能追加の検討をお願いいたします。   I also want to understand the incentive status of Claimed workloads in the FRP Dashboard

Yammer being a networking tool should be integrated into the Partner Community Portal, which will make it easier for partners to collaborate using a single portal.

Hi,  As a FastTrack Partner i'd like the idea of having a quarterly or twice a year get together with FRP's on discussing issues they've been encountering and getting solutions. obviously, this would be the best if it was set in groups of 4 where the FRP's are in different Geolocations (Competition wise)  the community call is more a presentation meeting with Q&A  in the times that there is no Face 2 Face event for FRP's anymore this would be my second-best solution for this. 

The decision makers for Viva are much different than the ones for typical E3/E5 workloads. We typically work with IT teams and we're great at driving IT focused intent with customers. Viva typically rolls up under another team that owns employee experience (typically HR). They are the ones to drive the intent and then it's passed back to IT for adoption. We're not networked to the Viva decision makers enough to make a lot of traction with deploying the seeded Viva value.  Topics have been the easiest to drive intent since "everyone hates search" so it provides major value. 

For all our customers we can see that Viva Connections, Insights, Topics, and Learning PAU are available for all licenses and 15%/ 40% incentives can be earned.Kindly ask you for technical guidance for Viva included with Office 365/ Microsoft 365 licenses to know what features are available per each qualified licensed plan, how to implement them and what are the intentional actions we need to follow so we could be paid for driving usage on these workloads.

Hi there, When we go into the FCU in partner center as I have access to all subsidiaries MPN IDs I see all tenants, please can we have a MPN  / Country filter to break out individual MPNs / Countries instead of an all up view.  Thanks

Please use a sensible file naming convention for Statements that will allow them to display in chronological order 

Quisitive has been getting a lot of traction with AADP and MDE but lagging behind on MDO. Mike mentioned a few consistent blockers they have been running up against.  Customers have long-term contracts with competitive products which delay any implementation of MDO (Proofpoint was mentioned).  Larger customers have dedicated resources trained on the competitive products and a switch to MDO could challenge current resources roles which can create major blockers if the decision maker and/or key influencer is tied to those resources.  When talking security and identity with customers the functionality of AADP P2 and MDE P2 always take a priority over the functionality of MDO. 

in Partner Center logo Builder, Partner can have an official Statement to distribute their capabilities and current Available program they enrollment/partner competency, adding FastTrack Ready partner capabilities letter may support some partners in future need 

Hello,  I would suggest to move all the necessary documents to one place. Right now we can find documents on:Partner Content (microsoft.com)Microsoft 365 & Security for Partners - FastTrack Ready Partner HubKnowledge Base · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com)I don't know what sourse is the most reliable. It would be really useful if there was a website created for FastTrack Ready Partners with all the documents, instructions, templates, news.

In a recent FastTrack call we were made aware of a request to provide feedback monthly based on certain workloads etc.  I am happy to do this but there is a high likelihood that I could get busy and forget.  Would it be possible to use more of a 'push strategy' with this?  If you send me monthly surveys or with the workload you would like feedback for and the link to complete I am way more likely to get this done.  Essentially if you can find a way to make it super easy for me I am happy to help. 

We're seeing trends throughout our customer base that I wanted to share. For context, we're a participant in multiple MSFT Partner Programs including Solutions, FastTrack, ECIF, etc. We have continued to see interest from customers in Viva/Employee Experience as a whole, but conversions from demos/discovery/MCI workshops is limited largely due to two things: licensing costs  deployment effort and costs FastTrack benefits includes the deployment of certain workloads/modules, but many customers are lacking the internal resources to deploy these solutions themselves, which ultimately leads to pro services deployment costs with a partner; then resulting in conversations around CY23 budget constraints for a platform viewed as 'nice to have' not 'need to have' - when having to choose between a security deployment and Viva, security wins every time  The pullback on ECIF/PIE funding has led to stalled opportunities, this program was key in helping drive customers to pilot (used to supplement the customer investment and ultimately showcasing the value of the solution within the organization.  I'm happy to provide additional insight / information, please feel free to reach out with any questions. 

Is there any plan to add Power Apps as a CPOR workload?

Hi, When submitting for workshops based on the FCU - Workshop Eligibility tab. There are quite a lot of customers that then show 0 workshop eligibility. So therefore the "estimation" purpose of the FCU tab is negligible. Whilst being an integral part of the Customer Lifecycle being developed here. This data would be very helpful if it was accurate please.

Hello,I would like to request to include "Problem summary" in the topic of the email messages regarding specific tickets.Also if possible please include the problem description from submitted ticket as having couple tickets open it is hard to identify which case the response apply to.

Very hard to obtain buy-in from our business for technical billable resources to deliver a workshop for $1 000 when it was previously $3 000

Please could you review the amount related to MCI workshop. It decreased a lot and turns imposible to be used.

Please, review the creation of Market C for MCI Workshops.The value is not enough to pay the effort.

Hi! As the MCI Workshops have been fully integrated into the Partner Centre i'd like to see a full overview of all the workshops in progress, and be able to filter these on: - active - canceled - completedwith the funding amount in the overview. would this be possible?

Good day Microsoft Team,To receive the true value of this program, it would be great to obtain a list of the clients who qualify, especially if we are the deployment partner assigned. We have attended multiple sessions, although have yet to see the real value of the program as when reaching out to the relevant MS Account Manager, vouchers are not being assigned and we, as the Partner, have no idea on the workflow nor process. Even if the MS Account Team email the customer and copy the partner, this would be a starting point. What email address is MS using to send to the client and which stakeholders within the client base is this being sent do as there are multiple stakeholders within the client portfolio.

Hi team, it would be great if partners could proactively get information about which customer gets a deployment voucher. It is often the case that customers with a voucher contact us too late. Or the voucher shows up with a colleague who has no idea of the process.Many thanks in advance.

https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase/article/KB-01067/en-us has a link to FastTrack for Azure service-level description which has a page that is 4 years old. I doubt that is still accurate.

This was great content. thank you so much for sharing.

I’m not happy with this update how this is happened during the year after we created our plan and committed with our targets, by applying this you are pushing on us to minimize our efforts in the FastTrack with our customers.And Market C includes a lot of big countries names like EG, KSA and Qatar I can't understand your vision.please review it and i wish to update it again.

We received feedback from customer regarding the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policy as per below.1) For the scenario of blocking file uploads on websites, files (Eg: Word, Excel) created before the deployment of DLP policy will not work, unless the (old) files are opened to be re-evaluated the next time they are accessed or modified.2) When using Google Chrome (With Microsoft Purview Extension installed), DLP policy can block file uploads on websites. However, when the user opens igcognito window on Chrome, the DLP policy will not work due to the absence of Microsoft Purview Extension in the incognito window.3) Scenario: DLP policy is configured to block file uploads on Google Drive. When user uploads a file on Google Drive, file upload will be blocked. After that, when the user tries to upload a file on SharePoint Online (Whereby there is no DLP policy configured on SharePoint Online), the file will also be blocked from uploading. The user can only upload the file on SharePoint Online when closing & re-opening the web browser.4) Scenario: When blocking service domains (Eg: Google Drive, Dropbox, etc) in the Endpoint DLP Settings and applying it to 100 users, the policy will be enforced on all the 100 users. There is no option to exclude certain users (From the 100 users) and allow them to upload files on Google Drive.

Submitted on Behalf of FRP Alfa Connections:The deployment guide does not have the content we need to configure DLP:- Issue 1: Customer deployed DLP policy to a set of test group with the goal of preventing these users to upload files to certain websites. During the observation phase after deployment, they found out that some file types can still be uploaded to those specific websites even though the restriction policy is assigned to these users.- Issue 2: And then the users that are not in this set of test group are impacted, they cannot upload files but no policy is assigned to them.The DLP may not be configured correctly, the FRP checked if the wizards have the guide to assist them with the right set up but cannot find the answers within the wizard contents.Learn about data loss prevention - Microsoft Purview (compliance) | Microsoft Docs - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/dlp-learn-about-dlp?view=o365-worldwide

Submitted on Behalf of FRP WortellWe should add some extra attention for admin CSO regarding end users – perhaps we should create a readiness check to check MIP maturity of the organization (by delivering sensitive data workshop or have something to access the impact of MIP to organization and provide necessary steps to deploy MIP)

Submitted on Behalf of FRP Unified Data Technologies MFA guide is showing completed, but the all-guides tab is showing not started

https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase/article/KA-01109/en-us

I am aware that the only badge that can be used now is the image that is displayed on the ExpertZone results screen after passing the exam.With only this image, for example, if you try to display the badge in a large size, the image will be rough.We think that if we can make it possible to download by size, like large, medium, and small, the badges will be more appealing to customers.

As the FRP program is maturing can we create a FRP of the Year award at regional and global level.Partners put a lot of store into Microsoft Partner Awards and the visibility they get from a Microsoft Award. The award will be an additional benefit for partners and also be a vehicle where we can encourage and reward behaviours, we are looking for in the ideal FastTrack partner IE: Success Stories, Wizards Usage etc.

When pending a dispute for FRP in the Partner Support site, we used to be able to see all tickets opened from all members of our team. Now that is not posible and this creates a mess trying to follow up on tickets.CAS-03276-W4N8L has been opened in regards of this for months.

In the Partner Center dashboard, we can provide customer-based workshop eligibility control. However, we cannot quickly and practically see which customers are eligible for which workshop. For this reason, encountering a customer screen on a workshop basis will make our work practical.

Hello, I see when customer reached the millstone, the "potential earnings" becomes zero, Processing begins but,We don't see any processing data in any reports.

Can a list of incentive eligible SKUs be added to the FRP Ts & Cs? It would be helpful for FRPs to have them listed in the Ts & Cs to limit the confusion as there are SKUs that qualify for the FT benefit but not FRP incentives. For example, the G5 SKU is eligible for FT but not FRP incentives per OSU. Having something in writing FRPs can refer back to when unsure of eligibility would be greatly beneficial.

Dear all,it seems that the contact information attached to FastTrack customers is often very much outdated from the Microsoft side.Positions like Account Manager, Customer Success Manager etc. are seldomly attached to the correct people. I know that people, positions and responsibilities change quickly at Microsoft but I would really appreciate if an effort could be made. Otherwise the contact information are worthless.Thanks indeed!

Partner Trial RequestFor NextGen Windows Workshop, in order to get trial licenses that need to be worked on customer tenant for NextGen Windows Workshop, a button can be created in the actions column on the customer claims page for each customer who is eligible for the workshop and for which we make a claim, a button can be created in the background for this license purchase.

We now use the great new FCU interface and when we receive a RFA, in the Notification Email we can now open the Notes Field giving us date about the requested workload(s).So we can decide to take a RFA, or not, based on that summarized information.In the same Notification Email we should confirm having the RFA received and also that we reached out to the customer for the first time. So MSFT would have some information about the progress the FRP is making.But as we can not update the Notes Field for RFA's, we can not provide further feedback, like outcome of this first customer meeting, if we would like to reject, etc..As providing that feedback is no hard requirement in the T&C, but wanting to share meaningful information with MSFT, it would be a nice to have function, in my opinion, to be able to update the Notes Field for RFA's.

Since moving from FTOP to FCU, we have lost visibility to the usage across the customer's tenant when a new RFA is received. Our understanding is that once a successful CPOR claim is made, only after a certain period (8 days) will we get visibility to the utilisation of all the other workloads (where CPOR hasn't been claimed by another partner).This means we don't get the insights into the customer's usage till much later into the FastTrack engagement.Is the gateway team able to provide a snapshot of the usage across the tenant in the RFA notes? This will give us insights and better prepare for the kickoff and see what other conversations we can have to drive adoption across the tenant.This information used be available to us in FTOP - service usage reports prior to the move to FCU.

In FTOP we were able to see who had what client assigned and be able to track each FMs/FEs portfolio.How is that doable in Partner Center?

Client operation logs (malicious work on the client side) cannot be captured by Intune and MECM.Many Japanese companies want to get this client operation log.Since log data cannot be obtained with Microsoft products3rd party asset management tools are used in many cases.Therefore, Intune and MECM are not adopted in many cases.

Please add an export function to the list of Tenants. We use Tenant workloads details as an input source to our sales campaign application to drive partner services collaboration on under-/unused workloads.

Can I please suggest additional FCU features?In the add contact sections, is there a way to default the Country/Region to United States so we don’t have to select it every time?I understand that partners no longer have to add ourselves to the assignment to make updates, however is there a way for Microsoft to add & default the partner contact name based on who submitted the CPOR claim? And then if someone else needs to be listed we can change it?

I would like to see more types of e-mails and videos, as the current Japanese language support makes it difficult to proceed with customers.

スマートフォンでのTeamsの操作に不慣れであったり、目が悪く小さなアイコンでの操作が難しいお客様向けにTeamsのアプリ内のアイコンを大きくできる機能があると嬉しいです。お客様の中に老眼の方や、手が大きい方がいらっしゃるとアイコンをタップする操作が難しいようでした。文字の大きさはスマートフォンのOSで変更可能ですがアイコンの大きさは変更できないため、表示するメニューを減らしてアイコンを大きくできるようになるとより便利に利用していただけると思います。

TitleAzure Information Protection(Apply AIP labels to CAD, TEXT, CSV files)DetailNowAIP labels only apply to Office and PDF filesI want you to apply the AIP label to the following file formats that contain a lot of customer data.CAD,CSV,Text

PAUのカウントに反映されないライセンス型番や制約がまとまった資料やリストはありますでしょうか？先日、StepUp型番はPAUに表示されないと伺いましたが、ほかにもカウントされないライセンス型番や条件などがあればご教示いただきたいです。

https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase/article/KB-01172/en-usKB-01172にて"The following event recordings are located on FRP Yammer under Files."との記載がございますが、弊社は自社テナント以外のYammerが利用できないため、Yammer以外の場所にもレコーディング資料をアップロードいただくことをご検討いただけませんでしょうか。

Currently there is only one page with a single list of all the FRPs. https://cloudpartners.transform.microsoft.com/fasttrack-ready-approved-partnersThe request is that you Backlink that FRP list either directly to the FRP Website. Or that you provide a second page click where the FRP's Powerslides and/or Backlinks referencing the FRP's website is reference. Thereby further enhancing our relationship and backend references to one another. Also providing Customers with ease in viewing viable FRPs.

As Microsoft looks to transition to PC (FastTrack Ready) is there a way to automatically update the customer contact to be the same as the customer contact listed in the OSU-M365 claim submission? 

In the following article, there's a super heavy workaround for EDU tenants that's displayed when you expand the "IMPORTANT! Special Process to Earn Incentives for EDU Workloads Claimed at 100% AU" section.  This is a labor intensive process for partners and needs to be fixed.  Can we prioritize work to permanently address this and remove the need for this workaround for EDU customers?KB-01109  · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com)

Dear Team,I share my feedback about the recent announcement on Yammer regarding Microsoft Viva incentives for FRP.I believe eligilbity criteria are too restrictive for customer and thus FRP to assit their customers; In particular the 150 Viva Insights licenses requirement to be eligible to the Microsoft Connections incentive whereas Connections is the only Viva module fully included in existing Office 365 plans.Among our 115 FastTrack customers, none (to my knowledge) purchase any of Microsoft Viva paid modules today so these new Viva FRP incentives don't create any new partner opportunity for us.Despites, we're assisting some customers within FastTrack benefits to deploy and adopt Viva Connections module and features of Viva Learning and Viva Insights which are included in Office 365 plans and don't require to purchase the add-on license.Alban 

It would be great to connect forecast dates in FTOP to the related incentives. For example if you have forecasted June for a customer to get 40% usage on Intune, it will show the related incentive amount for that date in June. In that way we can forecast our total revenue for the upcoming months.

現状では、各月毎にチェックをいれてExportする動作を、月毎に複数回実施しないと欲しいリストが出力できない。複数月を１アクションで出力できるようにして欲しい。(現状では複数月をチェックしてExportを実施した場合、該当期間の合算値が出力される。欲しいのは各月毎にそれぞれのデータです。)【事象の起きる箇所】FTOP FRP Dashboardタブ：「Services Usage」表の名前：Services Usage項目：Select Month(s)の スライサー

自社の対象として表示される案件は非表示もしくは修正ができるようにして欲しい。  【事象の起きる箇所】 FTOP FRP Dashboard タブ：「15% Forecast」及び「40% Forecast」 表の名前：Forecast Date has passed 項目：FTOP Services のリンクマーク

Hi! I would suggest to organize and structure FTP Yammer community little bit more as I found it hard to search and find important information. Every day is some new information and post and it's impossible to find what is important to you, if you don't spend every day on Yammer. Maybe make segmentation of topics as: News; FTP office Hours, FT campaigns etc .. Just to distinguish a little bit more topics from one another to enable partners to find information that are relevant to them more quicker.

Hello, I'm very much interested in trying to automate the process of exporting data from FTOP. For example I'd like to be able to connect it to an excel or a Access DB or even a LOB app that might connect sales, the data from the clients and FT Managers. This way I could generate alerts when different thresholds are met (i.e usage, new workloads, etc...)Is there a way to do this? Thank you kindly!

Translation: When checking utilization in services Usage in FTOP, the PAU is displayed as 0 for some customers and the correct usage status cannot be confirmed.We would like you to cure this event because we want to support you after correctly grasping the current situation of customers.FTOPのServices Usageで利用率を確認する際に、いくつかの顧客に対してPAUが 0で表示され正しい利用状況が確認できない。顧客の現状を正しく把握したうえでサポートしたいので、この事象を治していただきたい。

My feedback is for the Microsoft FastTrack Ready Program> Windows 11 Deployment Incentive Program.FastTrack team has announced that a suitable Telemetry tool is coming to use to get the necessary customer background information for the Windows 11 Deployment. The tool would provide us, as Partners, a way to identify potential customers to whom we would recommend the program.We have an example from this week.We presented the incentive program to our eligible customer. The telemetry surveys were based on information obtained from the customer's environment. We spent a lot of time on this topic from our internal stakeholders and also from the client side.After Claim Submission, we were notified of the rejection of our claim with the conclusion: "After reviewing the customer details, we are unable to approve your request as this customer was already over the Windows 11 MAD activation threshold for this program at the time the claim was submitted. "If we had the telemetry tool at our disposal, we could pre-empt potential customers for whom the incentive support would be worthwhile. This would save everyones time in this topic.

Please add the following language to the beginning of KA-01129:Mergers and acquisitions can be complicated for partners.  Partners have important decisions to make, and those decisions have consequences.  Because planning, communication, and irreversible decisions need to be made, please have the FPM loop in the RPM as soon as possible.

https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase/article/KB-01262/en-usThis new incentive mentioned in this article above does not apply to CSP customers. Microsoft has been pushing partners to leverage the CSP program for customers under 1500 seats. This program assumes that customer will be provided ServiceDesk and some managed services for the M365 Platform. It does not mean the CSP partner will provide professional services for the various deployments in the M365 Suite. This is outside the scope of traditional ServiceDesk or managed services for CSP Direct/Indirect partners. These funds would help expand usage/consumption of their licensing suite. By excluding CSP customers it leaves a lot of customers out of the incentive for FRP Deployment funds. From Microsoft's view, the CSP program is seen to be a managed service. It also is a way for partners to make some money off subscriptions. Instead of them going direct to MSFT or through an EA (which the threshold for being eligible is changing). Microsoft pushes CSP for partners to do, but then if someone is on CSP they are not eligible for Workshop funding, or deployment funds. Deployment is not managed services.

Within Power BI - Unclaimed and Milestone Opportunity tab can you please add customers TPID?

When a ticket is created in FRP Help an email is received by the submitter:Subject: We have received your SubmissionBody: We've Received your submission: CAS XXXXXXXXSimilarly to tickets opened with Partner Center Support, the email is not helpful in identifying what the support ticket is about. It should be relatively easy to add the title and body to the email to avoid having to click a button just to see what the ticket is about. 

As per my knowledge on November 2021 "Overall Status" was not required to be updated anymore.Could you take it out from Data Health indicator so that it wont reflected on the overall equation of data health compliance score?

Currently, the same email is sent to the user email address and FRP, butI would like you not to include the customer in the first referral email.We don't want our customers to know that we have declined support.If we decline the customer, the mail containing other FRP will be resent to the user.Customers know that we have declined.Is there a way to prevent customers from knowing their partner name?

I would like to bring up some perspective about the Deployment Voucher Offer that I think it is important to have as Microsoft work on the T&Cs as well as a definition of customer eligibility. Since the guidelines mention Commercial customers, I wanted to suggest that it should include government customers too. Let me try to explain why. We have served several customers last year with the deployment vouchers, taking them from not having the licenses to full utilization of the acquired licenses (the primary example of that would be X customer - ~7,000 seats). And we continue on engaged with this customer working on advancing them even more with Azure workloads. Now, the following opportunities are in the pipeline for E5: • Y customer (19,000 users) • Z customer l (4,000 users) • L customer (800 users) These customers are in Brazil, and they are government agencies. The challenge is that they have a long and bureaucratic process for running an RFP, they are now in the process of making the license acquisitions, but it can take them months, and in some cases years to run another RFP for services. There had been cases where they have purchased licenses and never implemented anything until the licensing contract was already expired. The Deployment Offer had allowed us to jump in right after the acquisition of the licenses and ensure that these licenses were going to be deployed and utilized. Which in turn helps to justify the ROI of the investment they have made at Microsoft and improves Microsoft’s position at renewal time. The Microsoft Account Team we are working within Brazil includes Luciano Lourenço, Fábio Gaspar, and Andre Toledo. Please, feel free to reach out to them if you would like, they will probably have a lot more customers on the radar than the ones I am sharing with you. And the Deployment offer might actually be the justification these government organizations might find to make a license acquisition sooner rather than later. We are looking forward to hearing back from you!

Hi Team,There’s an Excel Feature that some customer and myself would like access to within Azure / Excel if possible.It’s called Power Fx and allows us to use Microsoft’s GPT3 within our Excel Desk App and I believe within Teams as well.What do we require in order to use it?-----https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/from-conversation-to-code-microsoft-introduces-its-first-product-features-powered-by-gpt-3/With new features powered by GPT-3, Microsoft Power Apps users can describe a programming goal in conversational language and have it automatically transformed into Power Fx code.

Videos in Academy and Readiness need to have speed dial available in settings. Listening to slow speakers for a full 45 minutes. This one particular had good presenters but. . .slow and with accent. So if I'm trying to crunch and onboard/understand something quick . . .I'm in for a very long ride. Microsoft 365 and Security Learning Paths""https://readiness.transform.microsoft.com/video-training-page/4ffd30b4-adc5-4090-91b0-1b61d14840fb/8649d3f3-2bca-43ef-8cae-658e1e0b1538

Hi team,It would be great if you could include the forecast date in the Service usage report for any workload an FRP has a CPOR claim on. Currently we have to export multiple reports and then join them together to get a view on 15 and 40% forecast dates.Having this information in the service usage would be useful as it will help with making sure forecast dates are accurate and will allow us to focus on bringing the adoption dates forward.Cheers,

Alert/notification will automatically send to sender's manager email if the sender (internal user) send out email (labelled with sensitivity label) to external user. Sender's Manager means the specific manager that has been attributed in Azure AD/portal. Every single users in the tenant should have their own manager.

>FTOP Task Details<上で掲載されている資料を>Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Community<で検索しても見つかりません。※以降、下記と表現します。>FTOP Task Details<：①>Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Community<：②これまでPlaybookは①で探していました。しかし①のドキュメントは、今後は②に集約していくと認識しています。①にあった資料の"タスク番号"を②で検索しても資料が見つかりません。推奨の探し方、もしくは今後も①で資料を確認すべきなのか知りたいです。また、英語版資料がローカライズされたタイミングや既存資料が更新されたタイミングで、Heads upで全ての資料が周知されるようになっているでしょうか？もしくは、>Playbook Task Reference List<で今後も確認していくのがいいのでしょうか？

I think that FastTrack should include the Microsoft Viva Connections, Insights, Topics and Learning as workloads within CPOR association. Is there a forecast date when this update will be made?

The new 1-hour timeout feature in FTOP is a killer.  I understand the security reason behind this change, but the timeout session is just too short; same w/ the PBI timeout session.  Is it possible to have the timeout sessions for both FTOP & PBI extended to at least 2 hours?  

I would like to request for further information on customer feedback.KB-01140  · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com)1. What will be the subject and sender's e-mail address?2. Will it be sent only in English?3. For example, if the customer exceed 15% on three workloads at once, will three emails be sent?4. If the WL already above 15% at the time of CPOR registration, will the survey not be sent?Thank you.

Hi FT Program teams,Good days! I would like to bring to your attention that through our MCAP eligibility check on the MCAP portal for workshop nomination up to today on 20 Oct 2021, all our existing EDU customers from Malaysia (53), Indonesia (3) and Philippines (7) do not have entitlement to any of the 14 MCAP workshops. M365 Accelerator Program (m365partneraccelerator.azurewebsites.net)This is a great opportunity loss not only to E5/A5 upsell possibilities for Microsoft, but also a potential revenue loss for FRP like Alfa Connections (63 x 14 x $3500).Seeking your assistance to look into this immediately as my teams ready to drive more MCAP in FY22.  Your help would be greatly appreciated.Thank you.Best Regards,Intan Nurbaizura Binti Mohd Zulhilmi | Operations cum FastTrack Assistant 

Requesting early access to the tools and reporting within Partner Center as FTOP makes the transition to Partner Center. Looking to be apart of a pilot, leveraging the portal before any go live dates.

Understanding there are future plans for transitioning from FTOP to PC for data purposes I have a question about Overall Status Notes (OSN).  When previously asked, the answer was that they would likely go away and not be required anymore.  However, (as much as I cannot believe I am saying this) I feel the OSN history of a customer's FT engagement(s) can be quite valuable.  Some customers have been around FT for years.  Having a history of previous engagements can save a lot of time and headache.  As a regular part of our process, we review the OSN history for every new customer in FTOP.  Sometimes we find out information the customer may have forgotten to share that could have a significant impact.  Being aware of certain information helps us provide a better experience for the customer, which is very important to our team.With all that being said, I am wondering if the program team will take into consideration the value of the OSN and provide FRP a way to still utilizing the tool.

下記ページの Compliance Score Workshop が対象と思われるが、404エラーでアクセスできない。Translation: Compliance Score Workshop on the following page seems to be the target, but it cannot be accessed with a 404 error.[FastTrack Playbook] - [Resource] - [Services Workshops]https://partner-docs.microsoft.com/partner-site/playbook/resources-services-workshops.html[Microsoft Information Protection (MIP)] - [Compliance Score Workshop]https://partner-docs.microsoft.com/r/ygCnX5QYfpk/view下記のサイトで、Compliance Score に関する資料を探したが、見つけることができなかった。Translation: I searched for materials about Score Compliance at the following site, but I couldn't find it.Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner sitehttps://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase対応お願いします。Translation: Please respond.

Hey Team,It has been a while since we have had any updated deck describing the workloads and description of guidance provided around the workloads. I have asked our FPM and it seems that the most recent one is very outdated and missing workloads. Is this something that is on the roadmap or something that has been released and I just have not been able to access. Please let me know if available or when an updated one will be available.

I downloaded the incentive details from the FastTrack Ready Support site, but I don't know the customer name that led to the acquisition only by providing a gross amount for the amount earned in Edge.Internally, we conduct a department evaluation based on the customer name acquired, but at present we are troubled because we cannot evaluate it due to lack of information.(Even if Edge is good because the program ends, I would like you to include the customer name in the payment details in the future.FastTrack Ready Support (Incentive Statements)サイトからインセンティブの明細をダウンロードしましたが、Edgeでの獲得額についてはグロスの金額の記載があるのみで獲得へつながった顧客名が判りません。社内では獲得した顧客名を基に部所評価を実施しますが、現状では情報不足で評価ができないで困っています。(Edgeはプログラム終了するので良いとしても、今後も支払い明細には顧客名は含めていただきたいです。)

Does the FTC send Customer Satisfaction Surveys to FRP customers?  If not, would this be something they would consider?  On occasion, we request a SME from the FTC.  Most times the customer has a very positive experience, but not always.  I feel it would be beneficial for the FTC to know who is doing a great job representing Msft and who may need a little additional training. 

Hello,I had earlier opened a support ticket with FRP help which was set to a resolved status. However the problem continues so i added a comment to the ticket . However the ticket is still in a closed ticket. Please enable the ability to partner to reopen closed tickets or wait for confirmation from partner to close a ticketThanks,Vanitha

We have found that the PAU occasionally differs from what we expected.We recognize that the values in FTOP reflect the data on Partner Center, of which we inquired why the difference sometimes occurs, and they answered they were "system bugs." When the same event occurred around May 2020, you responded as follows:We considered FTOP as the provider of legitimate data; however, we are afraid to say that no values are considered legitimate because we have found the source data for Partner Center and FTOP are the same at present.We think this problem should be fixed, although it is systematically hard to fix.=================Entitlement (number of licenses), the basis for incentives and AU are based on information from Partner Center. Therefore, the data in Partner Center should be treated as the right number.　When FTOP and Partner Center show different numbers, some numbers are doubled. we simply think it will occur again especially when expiration of a license is coming as below and the number is shown double and then combined for a certain period of time. As you can see the numbers below, the entitlements in FTOP return to the original number after May 30th.  Please understand this is the way it goes. Unfortunately, this is something we cannot help improved by any means.FTOPのPAUが、想定される数値と異なることが時折発生します。FTOPの数値はPartnerCenter側のデータを反映していると認識しており、PartnerCenterに問い合わせたところ、「システムのバグ」と回答を頂きました。2020年5月頃に同事象が発生した際は、貴社に下記のように回答いただきました。今まではFTOPを正と認識しておりましたが、現状はPartnerCenterとFTOPのデータソースが同じなので、どこにも正と出来る数値が存在しないことになります。システム的に難しいことなのかもしれませんが、改善をお願いいたします。=================インセンティブの計算の元となるEntitlements(ライセンス数) 、AU共にパートナーセンターの情報がベースとなります。よって、パートナーセンターの数字を正としてください。FTOPでパートナーセンターの数字が異なるのは、単純に数字が2倍で表示されることは今までも今後も続きます、これは例えば下記のようにライセンスが切れる時期が近くなるとこちらのシステム上一定期間2重表記され合算されて表示される期間があります。下記数字をみると想像できるように5/30過ぎると重複しないためFTOP上のEntitlementsは元の数字に戻ります。こちらはこういうものだと理解していただけますようお願いいたします。これはどうしても改善は出来かねるものです。======================

Into the FY21 we had a great initiative of the M365 Deployment voucher, where a eligible customer had the implementation services covered by a eligible FRP partner (and follow up with FastTrack program itself).Into FY22 one of the main KPIs is the Phone System adoption / implementation.It would be a great punch to drive it, a Phonesystem Deployment Voucher to eligible customer that purchase licenses and help them to have all the required UC services to implement it (or migrate from other vendor) into Microsoft Solution.

Is there a way to automate the eligible workloads in the Customer Contact section w/i FTOP for CPOR approved workloads? To update the Customer Contact field in FTOP FRPs have to manually add the workloads eligible for survey.  Is it possible to have automation put in place that would auto-populate these workloads based upon approved CPOR? OR...... can the survey team pull the workloads from the CPOR Partner Information field (the FRP stamp) found w/i each workload under the Services tab of FTOP?  The query could look for fields not null & add those workloads to the survey eligibility report.

[Translated]When a customer has an MPSA contract, only MAUs are shown on PartnerCenter/FTOP, and PAUs don’t count.I understand that PAUs are not viewed for MPSA contract as it is not eligible for incentives; on the other hand, I do not understand why we still can submit a claim via CPOR. Therefore, we suggest any submission by the customer with MPSA contact should not be allowed.Also, I hear that Microsoft Cloud Accelerator Nomination is determined based on the data from PartnerCenter.License types do not affect the Microsoft Cloud Accelerator criteria. However, the licenses for the MPSA contract do not count in PAU, which might not be able to be nominated as the number does not reach the requirement.We hope these two issues are fixed for a better partner/customer experience.--お客様がMPSA契約の場合、ライセンス数がPartnerCenter/FTOP上でPAUはカウントされず、MAUのみ表示されてしまいます。MPSA契約の場合、インセンティブ対象外なのでPAUが表示されないことは理解できますが、であれば、CPOR申請のタイミングでMPSA契約の場合は申請できないようにしていただけないでしょうか？また、Microsoft Cloud AccerelatorのNoimnitaion可否はPartnerCenter上のデータを基に判断されていると聞いています。Microsoft Cloud Accerelatorのクライテリアにはライセンスの契約形態は関係ありません。ですが、MPSA契約のライセンス数はPAUにカウントされず、ライセンス数不足のためノミネーション不可になってしまうことがあります。上記2点に対して改善をしていただきたいです。

As lots workloads have officially changed the name to new workload name, could you please also change the names in Partner Center for them? Every time when we - partners are trying to submit CPOR association requests, or checking claim status in Partner Center, the old display names are really really confused. For example, Azure Advanced Threat Protection, which should be Microsoft Defender for Identity now, still using the old display name. This is confusing...

We've come across many examples where customers are fully deployed on a workload (such as Exchange at 99%), but when they are added to FTOP, the entitlement status is reflecting "Status Unknown" and we're having to update it to "In progress" to have it not show up on the non-compliance report. For workloads with active usage over 60%, it should automatically reflect as a new status "Adoption" and not "Status Unknown."  This is a lot of extra administrative work to update the entitlement status.  

Partner support area has no way for me to create a new case. Please tell me how to make a new case. 

As of today, the 'Teams live event usage' report can only be viewed in the Teams Admin Center. It would be very helpful if Microsoft can include a feature to allow the IT admin to download/export the 'Teams live event usage' to excel.

Currently, Microsoft Teams Usage and User Activity report are available for last 7 days, 30 days and 90 days. My suggestion is, much more better if we have daily data/report to be available for customer.

Translation provided by FPM Tamami Mitani The FRP would like MS account team to know which FRP are engaged with their customers so that they won’t ask non-FRP partners to support their customers. It seems there have been cases where MS Sales introduced non-FRP partners to their users who the FRP claimed CPOR for.I think the point is we need to raise FRP awareness internally and provide those kind of information with sales team. Also we have to recommend the FRP should reach out account team proactively with utilizing contacts information in FTOP.S2500のユーザはSMEやMWAと情報共有等することができています。S2500ではないユーザは、SMEやMWAがいません。また、S2500ではないユーザは、MS営業はFRPがアサインされているかどうかも知りません。そのため、FRP登録したユーザに対して、MS営業がFRP以外のパートナーを紹介するケースが出ています。S2500ではないユーザに対してFRPが登録されている情報を、貴社営業と共有する仕組みを検討ください。FRP登録したメリットがなくなるのは残念です。

FRP referral emails are supposed to be a valid, temporary PoE; however, the emails do not contain the required PSD.  Thus, making the referral emails NOT a valid PoE and they get rejected by OCP.  Almost all of our referrals are EDU and sometimes it takes weeks for the PoEs to go through all the proper approval channels (legal, compliance, etc.) before they are signed by the customer.  Since we live by the Golden Rule and start assisting our customers immediately.  We don't make them wait for the red tape, but we often face missing the threshold for incentives b/c of this.  How is FRP going to address this?  Will there be a new option?

For some CPOR claims we would like to have the option to set a flag that the claim/customer should not be moved into FTOP. Sometime we have customer where we provide services but are not providing any Fast Track services and it does not make much sense to track those customer in FTOP.

Hello,We have several disputes about having a customer claimed in Bucket size XXS for a POC that is running. At time of claim the AU is over 20%.In the current T&C this means a FRP will not be rewarded for supporting the customer achieving milestones in higher bucket sizes after additional licenses were purchased.In this scenario the FRP is spending time to support the customer but will not get paid on this. This seems illogical and not fair.Would like other FRP experiencing similar issues to like this idea, so MSFT Program Owners can update the T&C to become eligible for the effort spend.

I am trying to gain access to the task links for Microsoft Cloud App Security in the Microsoft Fast Track Playbook. However each time I click the link to get access it shows me an error.Task – 4207 / Task Links – MCAS Deployment Guide and Deployment Checklist.https://partner-docs.microsoft.com/partner-site/playbook/task-details.html#4208-mcas---configure-full-suite-e5 

FastTrack Ready Partner Hub上のPlaybookの下記資料をクリックするとエラー表示になり、ファイルが閲覧できません。FrP側で表示できない場合、ファイルがそもそもないのか、FrPのみ表示できないのか判断が付かないため、分かるようにしていただきたいです。※FPMの方は閲覧できるそうで、資料自体は共有いただきました。■対象ファイル：Skype to Teams Transition Overview■エラーメッセージ：このページは現在機能していませんfasttrack-docs.microsoft.com では現在、この要求を処理できません。HTTP ERROR 500

[Translated]If the FRP registration of a company A is switched from another company to our company,In addition, if you switch from our company to another company,You can see service notes entered by other companies, or you can see our information.Can't we improve here?I think that it is good to see all the data as your company,Information between partners is getting stuck.--あるA社のFRP登録が他社から弊社に切替となった場合、また弊社から他社に切替となった場合、他社が入力したサービスノーツが見れてしまう、または弊社情報がみられてしまう状況です。ここは改善いただけないものでしょうか。貴社としては全データがみれて良いのかと思いますが、パートナー間の情報が駄々洩れになってしまっている状況です。

[Translated] Power BI is currently covered by FastTrack.In addition to Power BI, Power PlatformI want you to add it to the privilege target.Best regards.--現在Power BIが、FastTrackの対象となっています。Power BIだけでなく、Power Platfrom を FastTrack の特典対象に追加して欲しいです。よろしくお願いいたします。

We'd like to be able to run historical usage data report from tenant insights in Partner Center with usage each month for all the workloads along with the date claimed.  We have visibility in partner center, but we have to go to a specific customer and then click on the graph by workload, similarly to FTOP.

We love the focus on referrals for OneDrive for Business, but we received some regular FastTrack Referrals that should be Non Incentive Referrals instead.As example: we received a regular referral for a customer in size Extra Small for ODFB. We already deployed SharePoint Online, so there would be no incentive for this left. The customer was asking for file migration to ODFB, but the customer is not eligible for the Migration Benefit.We would like to understand why the RFA Gateway is approving such RFA and send this as regular referral. We understand that some areas around RFAs/Non-Incentive RFAs are a little cloudy woul dlike to have documentation that outlines and confirms the conditions that a RFA must meet, in order to be considered as a Request for Assistance, as opposed to a Non-Incentive Referral.So two questions:1. Are there any other FRP's facing this unclear situation?2. Could MSFT share documentation that outlines and confirms the RFA conditions?

[Translated] Currently, with Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Hub, I'm looking into FastTrack.However, items that are supported in Japanese are FastTrack Playbook and Operations Guide are few and far between. I want to have a better understanding of FastTrack. To that end, including FastTrack Ready Partner academy, Please support Japanese content for items that do not yet support Japanese content.--現在、Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Hubを利用して、FastTrackについて調べています。しかし、日本語対応されている項目が、FastTrack PlaybookとOperations Guideと少ないと思っています。私は、FastTrackについての理解をより深めたいと考えています。そのために、FastTrack Ready Partner Academyをはじめとした、まだ日本語対応していない項目の日本語対応をお願いいたします。

I was recently told that if I want to view the usage data from FTOP for sub-workloads for Teams Meeting, Phone Systems & Apps/Plat within FTOP I need to submit a CPOR claim for 'Teams Only'.  When will the workloads for Teams Meeting, Phone Systems & Apps/Plat flow into FTOP without having to also select 'Teams Only'?

When receiving payments from Microsoft from FTOP incentives or the M365 Partner Accelerators, there is no link to engagement ID's and i need to raise a support ticket each time we have a payment. Please can this be sorted to make this much easier? 

We would like to propose MSFT adds the FastTrack Referrals and Non Incentive Referrals as co-sell motion in PartnerCenter reporting.This would enable the partner to use one source of truth for receiving and handling leads from her partner MSFT.

It would be nice to see API access in to the FTOP and deeper reporting web tools, to allow partners to extract and manipulate the data.

I have seen some data missing in recent reports (random workloads) missing once data exported.  I take daily drops of the data for my own reporting and have seen this only this week.

It would be nice to have some FT decks customized for Education customers, with their jargon, wording, scenarios.Gabriel

On Partner Center, the OSU M365 insights, the recommended actions per each workloads, as well as what workloads are claimed per each tenant provide very useful information for technical people engaged with the customer.Currently there is no granularity that would enable us to provide access only to specific data, or to specific customer tenants or workloads for OSU Incentive program. We need to assign the "Incentive user" role ("incentive read only role" is not enough). This provides too much insights to our technical people that need only usage insights and customer status and do not require access to all other different Incentive programs, payments etc. or receiving any notifications regarding other incentive programs.A granular assignment of roles to specific people at service or tenant level in Partner Center would help. Also the ability to assign only specific customers to specific technical engineers from our company.Also a log activity with filters and access roles assigned to personnel would be of help. We like to assign responsibilities to persons on a workload - customer basis In FTOP it is possible to do this when the engineer or FastTrack partner Program Manager contact is associated on the customers tenant level. This feature would be useful to have in CPOR also.

I think it would be a great idea to include a summary or a link that takes you to a summary of what the customer is looking to do around the specific workload(s) attached in the RFA. Many times it is the Microsoft AE submitting the RFA on behalf of the customer or being proactive in trying to push adoption of the specified workloads. It would help knowing who submitted the RFA from customer side or Microsoft side, how FastTrack was pitched to the customer (many times it is pitched as hands on and services focused) and what specifically the customer is looking for in regards to guidance around the workload(s).

We're excited about Viva, but also a little worried that it will be shoehorned into the group of products that aren't fully integrated into FastTrack - which will result in lower usage. Ideally it would end up like Intune, or Sharepoint, rather than like Edge.Spelling FastTRackSpelling Sharepoint

Now that PowerApps are increasingly being used at customers - we'd love to see them added to the FastTrack benefit - especially for customers just getting started with the Power Platform.

Idea - FRP leads the engagement with the customer around workshops, guidance etc but leverage SME to deliver workshops. Partner team would shadow / learn from the SME particularly in the advanced workload space. FRP would retain funding / incentive (or perhaps it can start as FTC-CSS then move to FRP Led) but then builds internal muscle/skill around that workload. Perhaps a partner could have 1-2 "vouchers" to use for SMEs on particular workloads?

It would be great to add information about the update cycles and the last updated timestamp to the reporting - especially with regards to data health. It is sometimes hard to figure out how up to date the reporting data is.