Other ideas/suggestions

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?

The FastTrack Service description should be clear of partner obligations surrounding FY26 partner obligations on ADG's and delivery of the benefit. This can be confusing to customers and injects potential conflict when working with customers who's misalignment in the benefit description and partner obligation. Partner also needs to understand obligation to resource their team to align with new obligations. 

 Partner shared pain point when training internal teams on various propensity tools: SPARK, CloudAscent,  LightHouse, & MPX on wording/descriptions, noticing that our GTM resources & Learn article descriptions of the tools can be misleading in wording insinuating net "new" customer propensity versus "existing" partner- customer propensity.  While our data propensity models are referring to opportunities exposed within a partners existing associated customer base, our GTM PB/learn doc refer to terminology such as customer "acquisition", and "prospect"  which can imply there being net new logo propensity data. This can cause confusion for customers when training internal teams, sellers, alliance managers, or when presenting to leadership internally and can require mismanagement of expectations.  Attachments  Referring to:CloudAscent Partner Center Learn Portal - Partner Center | Microsoft LearnSPARK Propensity in Partner Center Insights - Partner Center | Microsoft LearnFY26-Security-Commercial-Partner-Playbook (5).pdf