Other ideas/suggestions

We are looking at “Insights” data in Partner Center and on the Copilot tab, we can see Potential Earnings which is calculating customers doing BOTH the pre-sales Envisioning & POC workshop as well as the Deployment Accelerator engagement. Do you have data or a resource to pull high level statistics on how many customers do BOTH engagements in their Copilot journey? This information will be helpful in getting to a more realistic understanding of potential earnings to share with ELT.

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.

With the rollout of ASPX to all partners, non-FastTrack partners now have access to the dashboard. While learning materials are available in the portal, GPS team members familiar with the platform have requested sessions for their partners by country/area.To avoid creating duplicate efforts for PSMs, a more efficient approach would be to organize a single webinar on how to use the dashboard. PSMs can then share the recording or link with GPS teams, ensuring all interested partners can access the training.

Partners have expressed concerns about the current performance measurement requirements in MCI engagements, particularly the expectation for customers to commit to license purchases before workshops are delivered. This creates hesitation among partners, who fear being penalized if the customer does not convert. As a result, some partners choose not to engage at all, missing opportunities to showcase the product and potentially influence customer decisions. To address this, would it be an option to allow 1–2 engagements per partner per year to be excluded from performance requirements? Maybe by adding criterias as can be used on education customers or the customers above x amount of seats. This would give partners the flexibility to deliver workshops to customers they believe have strong potential or genuine interest, even if those customers cannot confirm investment upfront, ultimately encouraging more proactive engagement and reducing missed opportunities.

It would useful when looking at the Copilot tab to see if the customer is an E3, E5 or E5 Expansion opportunity as well, and their Healthy/Unhealthy status for Secure Productivity. Whilst this can be obtained from the other tabs, currently as a partner you have to flick between the Copilot and Secure Productivity tabs or you need to have two different browser tabs open to see this information at the same time. When assessing an opportunity in the Copilot tab it would really help provide additional context to the partner on the other opportunity space from a Secure Productivity perspective as that will help shape the conversation they position with the customer. For example, if a customer appears as an opportunity to drive Copilot but actually they're not completely healthy from a Secure Productivity perspective (i.e. Unhealthy or At Risk) then that may become something that is factored into the overall positioning with the customer. Having that single pain of glass view would be very useful without having to switch between tabs all the time or have multiple windows open. 

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

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

One of my partners, Exakis, shared with the an improvement Idea for FPX (soon MPX). He said that when they export the Opportunities in an Excel file, the CPOR eligibility column does not exist, as it is in the Table view (before export). Instead, they have 2 columns: Claim ID and Claimed by Others (True/False). When the Claim ID is referenced- this means the partner has already a CPOR claim on that tenant. When the Claim ID is blank and the Claimed by Others shows “True”, it means there is a claim submitted by another partner. But When the Claim ID is blank, and Claimed by Others  shows “False”, in theory, there is a CPOR opportunity for the partner but additional verifications should be done by them to see if they can proceed with the CPOR claim. It can be that some workloads do not exist as they are mentioned in the Opportunities, to be further claimed. Example: DNR P1+P2, MIP P1+ P2, DLM P1+P2, etc. So it is not straight forward for them to identity a CPOR opportunity,Their ask is to have the same information/column in the Excel file export, CPOR eligibility (Yes/No).