FPC Program Ideas/Suggestions

I have seen some data missing in recent reports (random workloads) missing once data exported.  I take daily drops of the data for my own reporting and have seen this only this week.

CPOR申請が他パートナーからも同様の申請があったとの連絡いただいた際、下記のコメントをいただきましたが、日本の方に対して資料を全て英訳しする必要がなぜあるのでしょうか？

【事務局コメント】
申請頂きました本件に対して、他のパートナー様からも同製品/ワークロードの申請がございます。
本社の審査部門にて審査いたしますので、同意書および資料の英訳版を14日以内にご提出ください。

【CPOR申請】
ID: 1168652
件名:国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所様向けMicrosoft 365導入支援(FastTrack)TEAMS PLATFORM再申請

I love that we have additional fields (QE/AE/AU at time of claim) and we have the new workloads (MIP, Teams Meetings, etc.) in the Performance by Usage Milestone tab!!  However...... I would like to request we add the bucket size back to this report please.  The Bucket Size field is quite useful for quickly identifying incentive amounts and forecasting. 

This has been on my radar for a while now, as I imagine it will be for many FRPS. 

The current EMS/0365 Remediation Checklist which is accessed via the playbook, is now out of date. The dates/references are in the last year. 

They do not contain any of the new workloads which have been introduced by the program. 

Is there any guidance, on when refreshed Remediation Checklists will be released to partners?

Previous Post on Yammer:

We thought we should share this with the rest of the partner community. We have raised a ticket in relation to this issue with FRPhelp and the data and Tools team is reviewing the following.

We have found that the S2500 customers are being identified or tracked using TPID. The problem is in a scenario where multiple customers share the same TPID, all of these customers are being flagged as S2500 customer. For example, we currently have one S2500 customer in an industry vertical and as it shares the same TPID with 15 other tenants, they are all being flagged as an S2500. We have reached out to most of the accounts team and got confirmation from them that not all of them are considered S2500 customers, rather the parent tenant is the S2500 customer.

We know we are not being measured on this currently, however, the non S2500 customers are skewing the data health results and also creating a bit of confusion on who the actual S2500 customers. In our opinion, FTOP should not be flagging child tenants of S2500 customers as a 'S2500' customer.

With the goal of EOM to have MAM policies in use, can we eliminate the need for Intune and Exchange claims.  The effort to get a client to implement MAM is above and beyond Intune or EXO and requires additional focused effort.  In many cases we may not have claims for EXO or Intune with a client. For example, when we migrated to CPOR under our new FPM's guidance we didn't migrate any Exchange claims past 40% so as it is, there is no gain to us to pursue EOM with those clients.  Another example is we have clients that had an initial FRP and our now working with us.  While they have passed 40% in Intune, they are not using MAM.  My ask is to simplify this claim so we can focus on having a MAM policy put in place.  Why does it need to include the other claims which already have payouts.  Can we just be paid for meeting the EOM requirements without the other claims? 

Check record

Test Record

Test test test

Here's the description of the idea! Tiny text!