Other ideas/suggestions

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.

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.

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.

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.

It would useful when looking at the Copilot tab to see if the customer is an E3, E5 or E5 Expansion opportunity as well, and their Healthy/Unhealthy status for Secure Productivity. Whilst this can be obtained from the other tabs, currently as a partner you have to flick between the Copilot and Secure Productivity tabs or you need to have two different browser tabs open to see this information at the same time. When assessing an opportunity in the Copilot tab it would really help provide additional context to the partner on the other opportunity space from a Secure Productivity perspective as that will help shape the conversation they position with the customer. For example, if a customer appears as an opportunity to drive Copilot but actually they're not completely healthy from a Secure Productivity perspective (i.e. Unhealthy or At Risk) then that may become something that is factored into the overall positioning with the customer. Having that single pain of glass view would be very useful without having to switch between tabs all the time or have multiple windows open. 

The partner list currently displayed in PSM Scorecard does not reflect the FY26 assignments. This discrepancy may lead to confusion in planning and reporting

Despite being added last week, the latest insights and customer success stories are still not appearing in the report.

The reported number of MCI workshops is inconsistent with the field reporting count. This misalignment could impact performance tracking and resource allocation - example - Security LXP Dashboard - Power BI

Context:During the meeting, Leopoldo raised the topic of Sentinel for SAP, noting that many customers in Mexico and Latin America run SAP workloads on Azure or other clouds. There is uncertainty about the availability and effectiveness of partners who can deliver Sentinel for SAP solutions, and no clear customer demand or partner expertise was identified in the discussion. 1 2Problem Statement:There is a lack of visibility and partner capability for deploying and supporting Sentinel for SAP in the region. Enterprise sellers have reported a gap in qualified partners for Sentinel for SAP, which may limit Microsoft’s ability to address security needs for SAP environments and capture potential migration opportunities.Ask:Request engineering and partner teams to:Assess current partner readiness and expertise for Sentinel for SAP in Latin America.Identify and recommend partners with proven capabilities or interest in developing Sentinel for SAP solutions.Share best practices, enablement resources, and customer success stories to help build partner capacity and drive customer adoption for SAP security on Azure. 

Partners are struggling to get CPOR claims approved consistently where the FastTrack Benefit is the primary delivery mechanism. What is the guidance that a partner can follow to ensure submission of CPOR on a RFA is successful?