Would it be possible to have a CPOR Report View that would show the clients that have been dis-associated?    

With no email notifications, it is hard to identify which clients need to be re-claimed (when claim has been re-aligned when Partner 1 is delivery the Benefit)

Submitted on Behalf of Partners.

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.

It would be nice to have some FT decks customized for Education customers, with their jargon, wording, scenarios.
Gabriel

On Partner Center, the OSU M365 insights, the recommended actions per each workloads, as well as what workloads are claimed per each tenant provide very useful information for technical people engaged with the customer.
Currently there is no granularity that would enable us to provide access only to specific data, or to specific customer tenants or workloads for OSU Incentive program. We need to assign the "Incentive user" role ("incentive read only role" is not enough). This provides too much insights to our technical people that need only usage insights and customer status and do not require access to all other different Incentive programs, payments etc. or receiving any notifications regarding other incentive programs.
A granular assignment of roles to specific people at service or tenant level in Partner Center would help. Also the ability to assign only specific customers to specific technical engineers from our company.
Also a log activity with filters and access roles assigned to personnel would be of help. We like to assign responsibilities to persons on a workload - customer basis In FTOP it is possible to do this when the engineer or FastTrack partner Program Manager contact is associated on the customers tenant level. This feature would be useful to have in CPOR also.

I think it would be a great idea to include a summary or a link that takes you to a summary of what the customer is looking to do around the specific workload(s) attached in the RFA. Many times it is the Microsoft AE submitting the RFA on behalf of the customer or being proactive in trying to push adoption of the specified workloads. It would help knowing who submitted the RFA from customer side or Microsoft side, how FastTrack was pitched to the customer (many times it is pitched as hands on and services focused) and what specifically the customer is looking for in regards to guidance around the workload(s).

We would really like a customer facing web page, published by Microsoft, that explains the CPOR process to customers. CPOR registration is a difficult conversation for partners, and we would like to reference the customer with a Microsoft view of the process - since it is a Microsoft process. We’d like this to be a document that we can share with customers to help them understand what to expect when a partner files for CPOR. It should also include information around the POE process, from a customer perspective – including what accepting POE means to the customer (eg. what access this gives and doesn’t give to the partner). Having this document written from Microsoft and directed to the customer will be very helpful. Ideally it would be fairly short and simple to read for customers that want to scan it quickly to get the jist.  

We're excited about Viva, but also a little worried that it will be shoehorned into the group of products that aren't fully integrated into FastTrack - which will result in lower usage. Ideally it would end up like Intune, or Sharepoint, rather than like Edge.

Now that PowerApps are increasingly being used at customers - we'd love to see them added to the FastTrack benefit - especially for customers just getting started with the Power Platform.

Idea - FRP leads the engagement with the customer around workshops, guidance etc but leverage SME to deliver workshops. Partner team would shadow / learn from the SME particularly in the advanced workload space. FRP would retain funding / incentive (or perhaps it can start as FTC-CSS then move to FRP Led) but then builds internal muscle/skill around that workload. Perhaps a partner could have 1-2 "vouchers" to use for SMEs on particular workloads?

In approx. 10% of the cases we get a notification of customer disassociation due to another partner claim for the same workload.
When we take a closer look at the impacted accounts we notice that:
- the accounts all have one global tenant ID;
- the accounts are active in several countries/global regions;
- the accounts don't work with a global deployment partner;
- the accounts work with several local partners depending on the region; 
- the accounts deploy workloads at different speed.
In Azure it is possible to have multiple partners.
Why couldn't there be a similar solution to associate multiple partners when a customer is working with several local partners depending on the region?