Share insights/feedback, ideas and requests related to the FRP Program.
-
Please include Transaction ID from FTR statements in payments
Suggested by Teresa Heuke – Rejected – 2 Comments
Its very clumsy and difficult to identify Fasttrack payments (non OSU). A good idea would be either -- include the Transaction ID from the statement in the payment textOR- include the MS invoice number in the statements (because this is being sent in the text of the payments)With that you will avoid a lot of questions when payments have been done and when they are received. -
Partner settings for MSFT FastTrack Referrals
Suggested by Han Weghorst – Completed – 2 Comments
As FRP we receive referrals from MSFT.In order to be able to receive only these referrals that are relevant of best fit, we would like to be able to select or deselect criteria when to receive these referrals, like:- customer segmentation- customer size- customer workloads (like endorsements)Having these option would improve the customer experience as only the referrals that are best fit are handed over to the FRP. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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 partnersIt 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. -
Need Security Everywhere back for Partners with the security badge!
Suggested by John Francis – Rejected – 1 Comments
Team, up unitl i think the beginning of 2023, we were able to delivery PIE security everywhere engagements... we are an M365 partner with 5 badges, security being one of them.. but that doesnt seem to matter for the security everywher program as you now have to be an MSSP to delivery that engagement.We find that a bit ridiculous in that we are always helping clients move to e5, EMS, etc.. and have built a team around that... we are a Professional Services company and an SI (as well as a CSP), but we are in the business of implementation and integration, not the types of services provided by an MSSP.our M365 clients rely on us to help them make decisions around upgrading, replaceing competitive products, etc.. and they dont think they should have to pay for that as they consider it microsoft presales work... but now i cant accomodate those types of engagement sfor them...we need to be able to! -
CPOR and FastTrack Claim Process, and more specifically a partner change
Suggested by John Francis – Rejected – 1 Comments
we ahve been doing business with one of our clients, an over 60000 person organization, and had been their DPOR even back in the day. Recenlty, another parnter must be doing some work in there for someone, and submitted a CPOR claim for SharePoint and Teams.Since we have been working with them since Moss 2007, we have not been submitting new claims wevery time we got a new project with them; but, when another partner submitted a claim the client was reassigned to them... without anyone asking us or the client what their preference was... we work directly with the collaboration team at the client, and they had no idea who else may have submitted anyhing, but likely just a dpeartment with whom they were doing some work.when a partner submits a cliam and anothere parnter is already on the claim, there should be some kind of discussion between the microsoft program team and the two partners before just arbitrailiy making the siwtch -
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. -
CPOR program feedback (submitted on behalf of FRP-Kraft Kennedy)
Suggested by Lynda Mahabir – Rejected – 0 Comments
There is no discernible protection for a partner after you provide the benefit. If we execute a justification exercise for SCI, or migrating to Teams or Intune, we should be able to maintain the customer association for a period of time. We are being usurped by LARs as the Partner Center criteria for picking between contested associations is a mystery and decided by uneducated, non-Microsoft employees. Partner Support is terrible, staffed by a team that has no clue what they are doing or how partners need Partner Center.