Program Tools (non OSU) ideas/suggestions

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.

We need to know if the utilizing FRP MXP Dashboard to do MCI workshop through Eligible MCI lead to upsell.Currently there's no visibility except to know that. PSM ask manually to partner what deal happened, which MCI worshop that comes from the deal. It leads to very long time because There are multiple layer and many team involved ( might ask CSM need to ask AE/ Ask regional alliance manager, need to check in country/account level)The FRP doing the workshop might be different than the one close the deal, potentially not aware Having dashboard showing possibility ofWhich workshop completed by partnerWhich customer completed workshop by tenant ID and if there's license purchase to trackInclude Tenant Purchase align with Completed Workshop list in the PSM Dashboard

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. 

Context:Partners operating across several regions (such as SoftwareOne) are encountering global caps on MCI (Microsoft Commercial Incentives) nominations. These caps limit the number of nominations a partner can submit globally, regardless of regional demand or opportunity. As a result, partners are attempting to route nominations through other locations to maximize their engagement, but this workaround is not always effective and can create reporting and operational challenges. For example, SoftwareOne is nominating from a global account in EMEA to customers in LATAM, but these nominations do not appear in LATAM-specific filters, obscuring true activity and slowing down execution. Insight and Impact:The global cap is slowing down partner execution, as seen with SoftwareOne, by restricting their ability to fully leverage MCI programs in high-demand regions. This leads to underreported activity, operational inefficiencies, and missed opportunities for both Microsoft and the partner. The workaround of submitting nominations via other regions is not sustainable and complicates tracking, ultimately reducing the effectiveness of MCI engagements and partner growth in key markets. Currently Partner MCI nominations have been paused because they've already reached the cap. Regions are also worried about the MCI performance requirements that might not be met by one region and impact other regions.

Context:Global Go-To-Market (GTM) initiatives (Copilot Chat Accelerate) are designed at a worldwide scale but require adaptation and execution at the regional level. The process of translating these global strategies into actionable regional plans is often complex, involving multiple stakeholders, local market nuances, and alignment with regional partner capabilities. This complexity can lead to delays and inconsistencies in execution.Insight:Landing global GTM initiatives in regions is frequently messy and time-consuming. Regional teams must interpret, localize, and operationalize global directives, which can result in misalignment, duplicated efforts, and confusion among partners about priorities and available resources. The need to coordinate across time zones, languages, and business cultures further complicates the process.Impact:The slow and uneven execution of global GTM initiatives at the regional level can delay market impact, reduce the effectiveness of partner programs, and hinder the achievement of business targets. Partners experience uncertainty or lack of clarity, leading to missed opportunities and suboptimal use of available incentives and resources. 

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. 

[MPX] Request Graph of usage details with timeline per tenant with timeline in one view (like Lynx Usage details view) Background : Tracking of all products usage is difficult to use as it's spread in multiple rows in the tabDifficult to measure the usage impact based on timeline after the CPOR is claimed. ( partner want to know since the cpor is claimed / workshop done, how's the usage impact or gap) Request : Have usage details view similar like in Lynx Microsoft that shown the workload usage in graphs/ one page view instead of separate in rowsAsk: to have it's in the page of the tenant (together with the subscriptions they have)

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. 

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.