Karen Karen Garber

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. 

Context:SoftwareONE has highlighted both the opportunity and challenge of expanding Microsoft program impact through indirect (Tier 2) partners, particularly those working with Crayon. As the business seeks to drive greater usage and adoption in the SMB segment, leveraging the Tier 2 channel becomes increasingly important. However, there is uncertainty around how best to engage, enable, and support these partners to ensure consistent delivery and alignment with Microsoft programs. Expanded Insight:SoftwareONE proposed sharing internal templates, playbooks, and best practices with Tier 2 partners to help replicate successful strategies for driving usage and maximizing Microsoft program value. Providing structured guidance—such as partner playbooks outlining how to drive usage, utilize incentives, and deliver services—could help scale delivery capacity and improve program effectiveness in the SMB space.SoftwareONE also expressed interest in contributing ideas and support for initiatives aimed at enabling indirect partners, recognizing that this approach could help both Crayon and Microsoft achieve broader reach and impact. There was openness to collaborating on new partner engagement models, such as enablement sessions or peer exchanges, to foster knowledge sharing and accelerate results.

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. 

Context: The MPX dashboard lists a high number of Copilot-related opportunities, reflecting accounts with paid licenses, free chat usage, and potential for engagement. However, these numbers do not always represent actionable or realistic sales prospects. Positive PotentialScalable Targeting: MPX provides a broad view of accounts with Copilot-related signals (paid licenses, free chat usage), which can help identify where to start.Data-Driven Prioritization: Using MPX as an initial filter can reduce guesswork and give partners a starting point for segmentationRisks and Negative ImpactOverestimated Pipeline: Many MPX-listed opportunities are not actionable due to budget constraints, long procurement cycles, or lack of intent. This inflates pipeline numbers and creates a false sense of progress.Resource Misallocation: Partners may waste time and marketing dollars chasing accounts that have no near-term buying intent, reducing ROI on campaigns.Forecasting Inaccuracy: Over-reliance on raw MPX data without validation can lead to poor forecasting and misaligned incentives.Partner Frustration: If campaigns fail to convert because the base data wasn’t qualified, partner trust in Microsoft programs and tools can erode.The gap between dashboard signals and true opportunities is large. 

Context:Call between Karen Garber, Jose Carlos Vargas Medina, and Jennifer Burdett focused on identifying blockers and opportunities for deploying M365 Copilot. The partner shared their internal efforts to consolidate Microsoft guidance into a usable framework for customer engagements. Feedback:Partner has reviewed multiple fragmented sources (Microsoft portals, YouTube videos, guidance documents) to understand security controls for M365 Copilot.They manually consolidated this into an Excel sheet mapping 37 security controls.Expressed need for a single, centralized repository of guidance to streamline offering development and customer conversations. Challenges:Operational: Lack of unified documentation makes it difficult to build a consistent partner offering.Technical: Customers are unsure which controls are required for Copilot deployment, especially when using E3 vs. E5 licenses.Program Engagement: Difficulty in explaining and positioning IRM and DLP controls due to scattered resources. Program Feedback:Strong recommendation to consolidate Copilot security guidance into a single Microsoft resource.Partner’s feedback was acknowledged by Jennifer Burdett as valuable for internal process improvement.🔹 Proposed Solutions:Microsoft to consider creating a centralized documentation hub for Copilot security controls.Partner to continue identifying customers with stalled Copilot deployments and assess gaps in IRM usage.Follow-up planned with specific customer to understand licensing and deployment blockers.