Program Tools (non OSU) ideas/suggestions

I would like to request the addition of a CSP Renewal column to the customer data section in FPX. Currently, FPX includes the EA Renewal column, but it would be helpful to also have the CSP Renewal column. Partners take different approaches depending on whether a customer has an EA or CSP agreement, so they need visibility into the type of agreement and its renewal timing within FPX. When prioritizing customers, partners first check the agreement type and renewal timing.

I would like to request the addition of a customer segment filter in FPX. Our partners are strategically focusing on SMC customers. However, FPX currently includes both Enterprise and SMC segment customers, which requires manual extraction of SMC data. This process is time-consuming and has become a blocker for FPX adoption.

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. 

Request to add the information of the incentive, from CPOR, MCI , Deployment Offer earned together in the Land and Expand dashboard. Background; leadership team to utilize the MPX dashboard consistently, having motivation that it will help doing renewal, upsell, incentive, when they use the dashboard they want to actually see the immediate impact of which and if the effort resulted in the revenue, without having to spend too much manual effort cheking one by one currently

Currently in MPX a user is able to filter on MCI by selecting either 'Eligible' or ‘Ineligible’. To allow for better targeting depending on the specific campaign or motion a partner is looking to run, it would be useful if the filtering was more granular. For example, the ability to filter on Copilot eligibility, Data Security etc.

Currently, the Change Columns button in the FPX customer data area allows users to add or remove data fields displayed. However, these settings are not saved, so every time we access FPX, we must reconfigure the columns. While this may seem like a small task, it becomes a repetitive burden over time. If the Change Columns configuration could be retained, it would significantly reduce wasted time in the long run and greatly improve the usability of FPX. As an advanced enhancement, allowing users to save multiple personalized views e.g., My Views would be even more powerful. This would enable instant switching between different perspectives for analysis, making workflows faster and more efficient.

igures for PIIM and PIIR vary across multiple reports within the same dashboard. Example the PSM scorecard PIIM and PIIR data - differs from Partner Insights Data.

The CSP Deployment Accelerator for ME3/ME5 engagement offered via the MCI program is a great initiative, however I believe there could be confusion with partners who are seeing some customers as eligible, who in fact aren't. Because of the nature of this engagement, it must be linked to a CSP purchase within the same month as the claim and that is clearly documented in the MCI guide. However, because in theory most tenants COULD be classed as an opportunity for a purchase, partners are seeing a high number of customers appearing as eligible for this engagement both in the MCI portal and also within MPX. This allows them to claim without actually having an open opportunity, or a purchase within the last month to make the tenant qualifying. This presents a risk to the partner that they could potentially invest effort into driving work with the customer, but then not getting paid due to the customer not actually being eligible. To better define ths potential risk, the below is a direct quote received from Thomas Viertler regarding this engagement: The MCI engagement was set up so to allow a partner to select customer tenant IDs with at least 300 Entra ID seats (that have or not made an eligible transaction, as defined in the MCI customer eligibility section) - this is why partners see a large number of tenants in MCI . This does not mean that every tenant has done the required purchase and can be claimed. There are a couple of potential asks here:MCI portal, and MPX, be adjusted to show only true eligible tenants based on recent CSP purchase history. Thomas advises that the MCI team are looking into the feasibility of this - this could take many months to implement (if at all)There is a Power BI report which shows the eligible tenants for the engagement based on purchase history - FY26 ME3/5 CSP Deployment Accelerator CE Report (MCI Ops) - Power BI. This PBI is not currently open without requesting access. It would be useful if the program team could work with the report owner to have it opened up for all PSMs to access, and then perhaps pin it to the PSM Reporting Zone in the M365 G&I Reporting Center. This will allow PSMs to then provide accurate guidance to their partners on customers they have in their portfolio who are eligible, and minimise the risk of partners claiming and not getting paid for delivery due to customer non-eligibility. I attach a copy of the specific engagement as per the latest MCI Incentives Guide dated 22nd August.

EMEA Partner insight: Co-Sell Integration: The partner highlighted the importance of integrating co-sell opportunities with MPX. They noted that co-sell offers raised in the Microsoft system are not reflected in MPX, highlighting the need for better integration. An example would be were a partner has received an RFA (in MPX), which in turns creates an Opportunity/Lead that then is  created in Partner Center Co-Sell Opportunities.  A second example is where a Co-Sell Opportunity is created in partners center, this Lead is not visible or identifiable in MPX.  Currently there is no connection between these two areas of Partner Center resulting in extra effort on the part of the partner.  This connection would support both the visibility to MS Sellers of a co-sell opportunity and also provide data to the MPX Team that a RFA has resulted in VAS.  

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.