Share insights/feedback, ideas and requests related to the FRP Program.

  • 0

    Praise about the FastTrack Manager

    Suggested by Rogerio Molina – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.

  • 0

    Praise about the program

    Suggested by Rogerio Molina – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.

  • 0

    Editing a CPOR Claims to remove a workload after approval

    Suggested by Chris Radcliffe – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.

  • 0

    Conflicting CPOR Claims

    Suggested by Chris Radcliffe – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.
     
     

  • 0

    FRP Partner of the Year Awards.

    Suggested by Xavier Alegria – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.

  • 1

    Notifications

    Suggested by Ignas Lamanauskas – Completed  – 2 Comments

    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. 

  • 4

    Remove the Term "Proof of Execution" (and POE in general) from the Engagement Template

    Suggested by Chris Owens – Completed  – 1 Comments

    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.

  • 1

    New RFA route process level feedback (Submitted on behalf of FRP Vitalyst)

    Suggested by Xavier Alegria – Completed  – 0 Comments

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

  • 2

    FRP Meetup for knowledgesharing

    Suggested by Rens Ploegstra – Completed  – 3 Comments

    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. 

  • 2

    Statement File Naming Convention

    Suggested by Graham Cherry – Completed  – 2 Comments

    Please use a sensible file naming convention for Statements that will allow them to display in chronological order 
Suggest a new idea
    Please sign in to provide feedback in this idea forum.

    Search Ideas