Dzheyda Bilgin

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.

The current MCI engagement guidelines do not provide clarity on scenarios where an engagement is cancelled after nomination but before delivery, or when payment has already been processed by the team. This ambiguity creates confusion for partners regarding whether such cancellations impact their performance metrics. To address this, the guide should explicitly outline these situations and confirm that partner performance will not be negatively affected when an engagement is cancelled under these circumstances. Clear guidance, including examples and FAQs, will help ensure transparency, prevent misinterpretation, and maintain partner confidence in the evaluation process.

The MCI guide outlines the steps required to validate an engagement; however, it does not specify at which point(customer nomination or customer consent) a workshop ceases to be eligible for other partners. Clarifying this would help partners understand the process when a customer is associated with another partner. It would also assist partners and internal teams in determining whether an issue is due to a system error or because another partner has already initiated the engagement, particularly in cases where an engagement initially appears eligible but then becomes ineligible.