Share insights/feedback, ideas and requests related to the FRP Program.

  • 6

    Customer Referral Notes History Difficult to Read

    Suggested by Oscar Goco – Completed  – 3 Comments

    Going to Partner Center > Insights > FastTrack > Referrals > customer name > Notes History, it shows the notes with no formatting:
    NOTE: replaced customer information with xxxxx characters
     
    "10/30/2023 - xxxx@microsoft.com RFA # 83643. 10/30/2023; Request approved for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management. Assigned to FTCQ FRP • EDU Licenses: No• Nonprofit Licenses: No• Non-FRP Engaged: No• FRP involved: No• GCC: No    Partner/MCS listed in RFA: false   Contacts:   • Customer contact information: xxxxx.xxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxx.xxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567 • Requestor contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxx@contoso.com, 1801234567     Service Location and Language: • City: xxxxxx• State: Illinois• Country: united states• FT Supported Language: english (united states)   The following entitlement counts reflect the entitlements confirmed by the RFA eligibility engine. These entitlements may differ from FTOP due to latency or other issues but please move forward with the RFA based on the eligibility verified by the On-Demand Team.   RFA Approved Workloads:   • Purview DLM: xxxx Entitlements   RFA name: Request M365 assistance: Email retention policy setup   Additional information that may impact the project: We plan on implementing Email retention polices for the company and need help to ensure we are setting them up correctly.   RFA Form URL: "   
     
     
    An improved formatting would make this information easier to read:
    10/30/2023 -xxxxxx@microsoft.com
    RFA # . 10/30/2023; Request approved for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management. 
     
    Assigned to FTCQ FRP 
    • EDU Licenses: No
    • Nonprofit Licenses: No
    • Non-FRP Engaged: No
    • FRP involved: No
    • GCC: No    
    Partner/MCS listed in RFA: false   
     
    Contacts:   
    • Customer contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567 
    • Requestor contact information: xxxxx, IT Administrator, xxxxxxx@contoso.com, 18001234567     
     
    Service Location and Language: 
    • City: xxxxx
    • State: Illinois
    • Country: united states
    • FT Supported Language: english (united states)   
     
    The following entitlement counts reflect the entitlements confirmed by the RFA eligibility engine. These entitlements may differ from FTOP due to latency or other issues but please move forward with the RFA based on the eligibility verified by the On-Demand Team.   
     
    RFA Approved Workloads:   
    • Purview DLM: xxxx Entitlements   
    RFA name: Request M365 assistance: Email retention policy setup   
     
    Additional information that may impact the project: We plan on implementing Email retention polices for the company and need help to ensure we are setting them up correctly.   RFA Form URL:    

  • 6

    New MCI Build Intent Workshops Update November 1, 2022

    Suggested by Mohamed Magdy – Rejected  – 2 Comments

    I’m not happy with this update how this is happened during the year after we created our plan and committed with our targets, by applying this you are pushing on us to minimize our efforts in the FastTrack with our customers. And Market C includes a lot of big countries names like EG, KSA and Qatar I can't understand your vision. please review it and i wish to update it again.

  • 6

    About the destination of the first referral email

    Suggested by Otsuka Referrals – Completed  – 2 Comments

    Currently, the same email is sent to the user email address and FRP, but I would like you not to include the customer in the first referral email. We don't want our customers to know that we have declined support. If we decline the customer, the mail containing other FRP will be resent to the user. Customers know that we have declined. Is there a way to prevent customers from knowing their partner name?

  • 6

    Microsoft Edge reporting needs improvement

    Suggested by Balaji G – Completed  – 1 Comments

    Dear Team,

    Currently before a month ago, we received Microsoft Edge FRP Claim Incentive. We have not had any clue on for which customers and for how many seats the claim has been shared. It only indicated the $ value alone. 

    We would need the below
    1. A clear reporting against each customer claim that is been received for the Edge workload.
    2. In FRP PowerBI dashboard, there should be an option to track the usage once the customer POE is submitted against the workload.This will help us to understand what was the Edge usage before we claimed and what we can expect as claim once we deploy remaining users. 

  • 5

    Non Benefit RFA | More details on why they do not qualify for FastTrack

    Suggested by Stephen Brown – Accepted  – 1 Comments

    We have started to receive 'Non-Benefit' referrals and noticed the notes lack details on why the customer did not qualify for the FT Benefit. Most of them seem like they should have qualified.
     
    Could more detail be provided on why the customer did not qualify for the FT Benefit? This could help us get to the right solution for the customer faster.

  • 5

    Feedback around FastTrack Deployment Funds

    Suggested by Jeff Whealen – Completed  – 1 Comments

    https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase/article/KB-01262/en-us

    This new incentive mentioned in this article above does not apply to CSP customers. Microsoft has been pushing partners to leverage the CSP program for customers under 1500 seats. This program assumes that customer will be provided ServiceDesk and some managed services for the M365 Platform. It does not mean the CSP partner will provide professional services for the various deployments in the M365 Suite. This is outside the scope of traditional ServiceDesk or managed services for CSP Direct/Indirect partners. These funds would help expand usage/consumption of their licensing suite. By excluding CSP customers it leaves a lot of customers out of the incentive for FRP Deployment funds. From Microsoft's view, the CSP program is seen to be a managed service. It also is a way for partners to make some money off subscriptions. Instead of them going direct to MSFT or through an EA (which the threshold for being eligible is changing). Microsoft pushes CSP for partners to do, but then if someone is on CSP they are not eligible for Workshop funding, or deployment funds. Deployment is not managed services.

  • 4

    Teams Rooms Sand Box

    Suggested by Khurram Ahmed – Accepted  – 1 Comments

    Hello!

    We recently received an RFA for Teams Rooms configuration which we don't get often and don't have test environment, devices or lab to fully deploy and test the Teams Room configuration.

    For better customer experience and learning purpose, it would be nice if Microsoft can provide us with Sandbox with Teams Rooms licenses along with demo and virtual Polycom and Surface Hub Gen 1 devices so we can test out few scenarios to successfully deliver customer engagements.

    Thank you 

  • 4

    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
     

  • 4

    Remove the Term "Proof of Execution" (and POE in general) from the Engagement Template

    Suggested by Chris Owens – Completed  – 1 Comments

    This seems like a constant piece of feedback, but maybe putting it on this board will finally make a difference. "Proof of Execution" means that you have finished the project/task/assignment/etc. in 100% of the cases when those words are used, including dozens used by Microsoft. Proof of Execution is a document for ECIF as well as the MCI program and both have the customer completing and signing a document after the partner has done work. 
     
    For some reason, FastTrack wants to use the term Proof of Execution for a document required of the partner prior to doing any work for the customer. This leads to confusion and the customer not understanding why "this time it is different" and not wanted to sign something that seems to indicate that the partner has completed something when no work has started. "FastTrack Engagement Form" or just about anythign would be better.
     
    When this feedback was presented at various FastTrack Community Calls and other live events, the partners were told the document would only have "POE" on it and that it stood for "Proof of Engagement" - that is not what has happened. "Proof of Execution" is written right across the title bar.
     
    This needs to be changed.

  • 4

    PSD on FRP referral emails

    Suggested by LeeAnne Hughes – Rejected  – 0 Comments

    FRP referral emails are supposed to be a valid, temporary PoE; however, the emails do not contain the required PSD.  Thus, making the referral emails NOT a valid PoE and they get rejected by OCP.  Almost all of our referrals are EDU and sometimes it takes weeks for the PoEs to go through all the proper approval channels (legal, compliance, etc.) before they are signed by the customer.  Since we live by the Golden Rule and start assisting our customers immediately.  We don't make them wait for the red tape, but we often face missing the threshold for incentives b/c of this.  
    How is FRP going to address this?  Will there be a new option?
Suggest a new idea
    Please sign in to provide feedback in this idea forum.

    Search Ideas