I think that FastTrack should include the Microsoft Viva Connections, Insights, Topics and Learning as workloads within CPOR association. Is there a forecast date when this update will be made?

The new 1-hour timeout feature in FTOP is a killer.  I understand the security reason behind this change, but the timeout session is just too short; same w/ the PBI timeout session.  Is it possible to have the timeout sessions for both FTOP & PBI extended to at least 2 hours?  

I would like to request for further information on customer feedback.
KB-01140  · M365 Specialty Partner (powerappsportals.com)

1. What will be the subject and sender's e-mail address?
2. Will it be sent only in English?
3. For example, if the customer exceed 15% on three workloads at once, will three emails be sent?
4. If the WL already above 15% at the time of CPOR registration, will the survey not be sent?

Thank you.

When opening a case we are required to enter a lot of redundant data that already exists in the system, like: chose program, enter MPN ID, enter claim ID, customer tenant ID, workload etc. and also our contact details. All this information is time consuming and could be automatically populated if a specific start a dispute or clarification button would be available at that specific Workload line in Partner Center.

Additional small remarks:
1. when the case is generated has the name "Case 5-0000xxxxxx has been opened for your request" instead of the issue or claim id that would help easier identify the emails. It would be useful if the case name would also be generated automatically or contain the problem summary
2. if an incentive has been payed it would be easier if it would be listed as payed or earned at workload level with the respective earned amount so that we do not need to open a case just to find out this has been calculated. It would also help track all past earnings at customer level. The orange vs blue color that appears now only indicates if milestone was reached and not that we met program terms (ie. if it was reached and we claimed at 30% or 50% I think it shows the same as if we would have claimed it at 5%)

Thank you!

Hi FT Program teams,

Good days!

 I would like to bring to your attention that through our MCAP eligibility check on the MCAP portal for workshop nomination up to today on 20 Oct 2021, all our existing EDU customers from Malaysia (53), Indonesia (3) and Philippines (7) do not have entitlement to any of the 14 MCAP workshops. 
M365 Accelerator Program (m365partneraccelerator.azurewebsites.net)

This is a great opportunity loss not only to E5/A5 upsell possibilities for Microsoft, but also a potential revenue loss for FRP like Alfa Connections (63 x 14 x $3500).

Seeking your assistance to look into this immediately as my teams ready to drive more MCAP in FY22.  Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Best Regards,
Intan Nurbaizura Binti Mohd Zulhilmi | Operations cum FastTrack Assistant

 

Requesting early access to the tools and reporting within Partner Center as FTOP makes the transition to Partner Center. Looking to be apart of a pilot, leveraging the portal before any go live dates.

Understanding there are future plans for transitioning from FTOP to PC for data purposes I have a question about Overall Status Notes (OSN).  When previously asked, the answer was that they would likely go away and not be required anymore.  However, (as much as I cannot believe I am saying this) I feel the OSN history of a customer's FT engagement(s) can be quite valuable.  Some customers have been around FT for years.  Having a history of previous engagements can save a lot of time and headache.  As a regular part of our process, we review the OSN history for every new customer in FTOP.  Sometimes we find out information the customer may have forgotten to share that could have a significant impact.  Being aware of certain information helps us provide a better experience for the customer, which is very important to our team.
With all that being said, I am wondering if the program team will take into consideration the value of the OSN and provide FRP a way to still utilizing the tool.

下記ページの Compliance Score Workshop が対象と思われるが、404エラーでアクセスできない。
Translation: Compliance Score Workshop on the following page seems to be the target, but it cannot be accessed with a 404 error.

[FastTrack Playbook] - [Resource] - [Services Workshops]
https://partner-docs.microsoft.com/partner-site/playbook/resources-services-workshops.html

[Microsoft Information Protection (MIP)] - [Compliance Score Workshop]
https://partner-docs.microsoft.com/r/ygCnX5QYfpk/view

下記のサイトで、Compliance Score に関する資料を探したが、見つけることができなかった。
Translation: I searched for materials about Score Compliance at the following site, but I couldn't find it.
Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner site
https://m365-specialty-partner.powerappsportals.com/knowledgebase

対応お願いします。
Translation: Please respond.

Background: After watching the FRP Community segment on FY22 Partner Center and other tool changes and bringing AI to help evaluate OSU/Partner of Record claims faster, I wanted to suggest an alternative approach. My assumption is that it would be possible to have passive approvals for what I also assume are the majority of claims by changing the process. AI could still be used for what remains.
 
To truly streamline, having a hosted "request website" at Microsoft would be best as the OSU claims team would significantly reduce the need to manually evaluate claim forms. This saves whatever global quantity of FRPs there are from maintaining similar, but separate processes. The Microsoft program can pre-approve each FRP SOW for standard items at the beginning of the annual program period and implement required changes, like the public sector requirements on the fly or with minimal intervention. The team handling the claims approval would then have more time to process those with custom SOWs, that may include special offers or value-added services.
 
The customer and partner experience would improve significantly. Some customers have adversity to a document-based form that is routed via email versus a webform. There would be better reporting for all parties involved in the process.  Lost claims forms situations should go to zero. Target dates could be captured from the customer, when submitting the request. The partners would have better visibility to the status of claims and reduce manual input as well. The "chain of custody" problem with some claims would be eliminated. With some common sense guidelines determined programmatically, there could be a reduction of erroneous disassociations, which will reduce disputes. When disputes arise, more specific data in a single repository would exist, thus streamlining the ability to respond appropriately and more timely. There is potential that this process could also support short-term or specific programs like we saw with Edge or Teams Rooms. The limitations about the number of claims submitted could either be identified upon submission or be eliminated.
 
The workflow I envision is as follows (with my knowledge of the process):

1. The FRP provides the customer one of 2 ways to engage with the claims/partner of record process:
   1. The customer could receive a custom URL for a specific FRP
   2. The FRP would have a code to provide to the customer, that identifies the specific FRP
   3. For custom SOWs, the FRP could pre-enter much of the data and upload the SOW that is outside of the preapproved items for that FRP. Then a custom URL for that document could be provided to the customer and they would login and approve.
2. When the customer logs in, they complete the necessary fields. There may need to be an interim step as a Tenant Administrator (or even the FRP) may need to complete some fields and then save it as a draft or send it onto the designated approver at the organization.
   1. Want: The page could have both logos so it is visible this is a Microsoft program, delivered by a Partner
   2. Want: The customer could define the appropriate contact for surveys, indicating a single POC for all services or individual for each
3. The completed webform routes a notification as it moves to the FRP-confirmation stage, to the FRP for confirmation and once they confirm, it goes for approval to the OSU claims team
   1. The FRP should have the right to send it back to the customer for corrections
4. With a preapproved SOW list, any services at this stage that are defined as "standard" for the FRP, would have a passive approval, if no existing claims exist.
   1. Want: Process improvement to reduce erroneous partner dissociations.
      1. When a customer logs in for approval in step 2, they would see what is claimed by which FRPs and if they are below a certain percentage with no growth over a certain time period (TBD), they would be eligible to change.
      2. If they don't meet that criteria, there can be an exception form the FRP can walk through with the customer to determine if disassociation would be appropriate.
5. It is likely a significant portion of these would be auto-approved at this point, with confirmation emails sent to the Customer and Partner. Exceptions, customer SOWs, and disputes would become the majority of the work for the approval team as they can shift the volume out of their queue.
6. In the backend, this process could be linked to the Partner Center portal interface and simply loaded automatically at some interval, improving the speed of seeing the claims from the current process.

 
 

Hey Team,

It has been a while since we have had any updated deck describing the workloads and description of guidance provided around the workloads. I have asked our FPM and it seems that the most recent one is very outdated and missing workloads. Is this something that is on the roadmap or something that has been released and I just have not been able to access. Please let me know if available or when an updated one will be available.