New CMRP Pathways Member Survey Summary as at September 2013 1
A Robust Membership Response • The MRIA made every a8empt to contact all
members, though those for whom the MRIA does not have a current email address, or those who have a spam filter that intercepted the invita@on may not have received an invita@on.
• The survey was “live” for most of the month of September 2013.
• The ques@onnaire was developed by the PD&C Commi8ee and reviewed by several members of the MRIA staff and external members of the MRIA.
• The ques@onnaire was provided in both English and French.
• Nearly 30% of the membership did take the @me to respond but some did not complete the ques@onnaire.
• Only completed ques@onnaires were tabulated.
• The in-‐tab sample was 351 respondents. • Understandably CMRP holders were over-‐
represented in the sample. • No weigh@ng was applied to the results as it
was felt to be impossible to provide sufficient specifica@ons on the total MRIA membership to accurately manipulate the database.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of MRIA Members
CMRP
FMRIA
Wrote CMRE
Grandfathered
Male
Female
Average Age
Supply Side Quant
Supply Side Qual.
Supply Side Data/Recruit
Supply Side Other
Client Side
Academic
Average Research Years
22%
48%
3%
18%
30%
53%
47%
47 Years
37%
12%
5%
9%
32%
2%
19 Years
2
The CMRP has a Posi@ve Image • The CMRP predominantly is seen to stand for
having a good knowledge of and skills for Marke@ng Research
• It is also broadly thought to indicate that the holder of the CMRP is commi8ed to the ethics of the MRIA.
• It is also viewed as being something that took some effort to obtain and that the holders are proud of achieving the designa@on.
• Secondarily, CMRPs are seen to be leaders in the profession, holding superior knowledge and insight.
• There is rela@vely limited associa@on with CMRP being a business, job or salary benefit.
THE CMRP BRAND IS
STRONG
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Has knowledge of MR
Has the required skills
Commi8ed to ethics
Took courses / CMRE
Proud of CMRP
CMRP obtains business
Leader in the profession
Superior knowledge/insight
Be8er job/salary
27%
31%
5%
7%
6%
5%
3%
3%
1%
73%
62%
52%
49%
47%
29%
24%
17%
16%
Best describes CMRP Describes CMRP 3
Member Comments on the CMRP • ...I wondered about the relevance of a core body of knowledge designa@on on an industry that was then extremely diverse
full of specialists as well as a few generalists. It is even more diverse now. • It needs an evolu@on. ...I think this designa@on has poten@al. I don't really know how to go about enhancing its poten@al,
but I do feel it is there. • When recently looking for work, I was disappointed my designa@on didn't give me a compe@@ve edge over others. I believe
poten@al employers weren't even aware of the designa@on. • All senior management should vouch for it. • I think that pure years of experience are more than equivalent to a CMRP. • Many people see this as something to obtain, like a diploma, while I see it as something to maintain and grow. • I've been in the industry to 16 years. At this point I am not going to take a number of courses or write a 7 hour exam just to
get some le8ers aher my name. • Very few senior execu@ves have the @me to take prep courses and write a full day exam-‐-‐but they are the industry leaders
and advocates. This needs a major change in focus, or it will simply die. • I think it leaves out a majority of the industry beyond just researchers and MR is more and more not about research but
other sectors such as the sample industry and technology • As a qualita@ve prac@@oner, it is important that qualita@ve researchers have equal advantage on the CMRP exam. • Consider providing advanced cer@fica@on in areas of specialty-‐ qualita@ve, quan@ta@ve, branding, meta data analysis, etc. • As an almost 20-‐year veteran of the MR industry, I am unenthusias@c about sijng the challenge exam or taking courses to
"prove" my degree of knowledge and professionalism • Research is more of prac@cal hands on experience than just academic courses and an 8 hour exam. Create a cri@cal mass
and value for the designa@on first. • I feel that those who have earned it have a different level of knowledge compared to those who were grandfathered. I have
met some grandfathered CMRPs who could not have passed the exam based on their competencies. • Good for the industry in total, more than just an individual thing but represents to future of the MR industry
4 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
BUT the CMRP Faces a Challenge of Relevance
• There is an equal division of the membership in their perspec@ve of the CMRP being relevant or irrelevant.
• Of course CMRPs tend to be more posi@ve but not exclusively so. Non CMRPs are split as well but in the reverse propor@ons.
• Even those who were grandfathered into the CMRP are equally split in their perspec@ve of CMRP relevance.
• Supply side members decidedly see less relevance to the CMRP than client side researchers.
NOTE: FMRIA is typo on table -‐ A primary objecFve of pathway changes is to
widen the base of CMRP holders to enhance the relevance of the CMRP! However it would be a mistake not to take other steps to heighten the relevance of the designaFon.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
32%
45%
21%
30% 28%
39%
33%
24%
43%
32%
37%
25%
Extremely/Very Relevant Not at all/Not Very Relevent 5
“Extremely /Somewhat Relevant” • Recently a8ained CMRP, it assures clients and
colleagues that I am a professional that follows industry standards and best prac@ces.
• Clear standards to qualify to signify that those with the designa@on have achieved a higher standard
• There is no other way to iden@fy myself as a Marke@ng Research Professional Other designa@ons such as MA or Ph.D. are too broad.
• IT provides a standard that will eventually be recognized as a basic level of competence in the MR industry.
• Provides tangible evidence of research exper@se. More communica@on/publicity to make the designa@on recognized more widely would be beneficial.
• The CMRP designa@on is relevant so that I know what my suppliers know...
• I think the CMRP designa@on elevates the status of the market research profession. I would definitely encourage all the young people who want to make a career out of market research to get the CMRP designa@on.
• It s@ll has great buying power when wri@ng up proposals.
• The CMRP designa@ons solidifies your dedica@on to the field, and shows you care about growing in the industry too. People can s@ll succeed in marke@ng research without it, but it shows that one wants to be in it.
“Not very/Not at all Relevant” • Doesn't make me a be8er researcher and clients don't
care. • My clients are aware of my professional skills and
entrust their projects to me on the basis of trust and successful conduct of studies over many years.
• The CMRP is an industry-‐created response to a problem that doesn't exist. I have never had anyone ques@on my creden@als given my experience.
• I come from the digital industries, and no client ever requires it. I also have a professional designa@on (P.Eng) and I am an MBA -‐ so that provides me the credibility I need .
• It is meaningless. Too many people were grandfathered in that have no business having any designa@on
• The designa@on may have some relevance to those on the supplier side, but I'm currently on the buyer side and I don't get the sense that people would view my abili@es differently if I had the designa@on.
• so far, it hasn't helped or hurt me. If it is taken away, i don't think it would hurt my career.
• Relevant to who? to clients? probably not. To me? how could it be when it is a designa@on I have, not one I am working toward. like asking me how relevant my BA is, or my MBA. The only reason I have it is for credibility inside MRIA. that is why i got it in the first place.
What the Members said about CMRP’s Relevance
Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments 6
CMRE Challenge Pathways Current & New
• The current CMRE challenge pathway has the following requirements: – University Graduate – Minimum 8 years experience – MRIA Ethics Course – Pass the 7 hour, 2 part CMRE
• The new version adds a minimum 4 years experience working under the supervision of a CMRP holder.
• Posi@ve and nega@ve ra@ngs are virtually equal for the Current and New pathways.
• The average rank posi@on equates to about the mid-‐point between being considered “Very” and “Somewhat Appropriate” for use for gran@ng the CMRP designa@on.
Extremely Appropriate
Very Appropriate
Somewhat Appropriate
Somewhat Inappropriate
Very Inappropriate
Highly Inappropriate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Challenge Current Challenge New
59%
53%
7% 8%
4.6 4.4
TOP TWO BOXES BOTTOM TWO AVERAGE "Appropriate" Ra@ng
7
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • Having exposure over the years makes a person a
veteran of Market research and they learn things in a different way. This should not discount people from accredita@on, but should put people with that much experience on a different @er within the system.
• It maintains the standards. I did the 7 hour exam. It was challenging and I enjoyed it. It made me feel like I was pursuing something serious and worthwhile, one that will differen@ate me from non-‐professionals.
• This is the path I took and as a mid-‐career researcher I didn't see the need to take courses on material that I worked with everyday. I had the experience, and the confidence, to sit the exam and prove my worth.
• Experience is a good teacher. If the person gains the experience on the job and can successfully complete the challenge, they should be allowed to have the designa@on.
• It is clearly a logical choice. However, for those with 20+ years in the field who are willing to pay a grandfathering fee should also be eligible.
• if someone has sufficient past work experience and is able to pass both por@ons of the exam, they have achieved equivalent training either independently or in their work
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • For those of us on the client side of the research
industry, we rarely write proposals and full reports, therefore I feel that those por@ons of the test would be the most challenging, and frankly, not very appropriate for me to have to do. Ask me to interpret the report and make a strategic recommenda@on to my business and that I can do.
• Because we don't do any of this and it only applies to old school tradi@onal researchers -‐ has not evolved for the new defini@on of Market Research
• The CMRE is the issue with all of the pathways. The CMRE is not reasonable or a true measure of knowledge/professionalism. It is a measure of how well you write THAT test.
• This pathway is completely inappropriate as the exam doesn't truly test someone's knowledge of how to be a fantas@c industry professional. Experience should only be part of the requirement, along with evidence of learning.
• Same response as before -‐ the tes@ng system is inappropriate. The test is not a valid indicator of Market Research proficiency at all.
What the Members said about Current CMRE Challenge Pathway
8 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • it is nice to see an op@on for people who believe the
have the skill set and do not have the @me nor money to validate through the other pathways.
• If people have neither a post-‐grad program nor MRIA courses under their belts, then it makes sense that the CMRE challenge should cover both the proposal and general knowledge components.
• Because it includes both Part A and Part B of the CMRE. A professional designa@on implies that everyone has a common standard knowledge of the profession.
• this is the current method and has produced some excellent and well documented professionals with the designa@on
• This is s@ll the best way for people with experience to show their exper@se. If anything, the content of the exams should be reviewed or modified to cover a wide variety of experiences, such as qual expert, vs. quant.
• I do not think the change from 12 years to 8 is substan@ally different.
• It is a slightly weaker pathway now because the experience threshold was reduced to 8 years. Otherwise it is appropriate.
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • MRIA should focus on higher quality for CMRP, not the
quan@ty. The person will not have enough experience, skills and knowledge. Inexperienced CMRPs will pull down standard of the en@re research industry.
• Why 2 years under an accredited CMRP? I understand it improves the standing of the designa@on itself, but prac@cally I'm wondering if this will exclude people.
• Eliminate the challenge in favour of the other op@ons. No instant CMRP. That will make the designa@on worth something.
• i don't think this ac@vely enables and promotes interna@onal members as how would they be able to demonstrate two years supervised experiences with an accredited CMRP? this person may be highly skilled and qualified. Also sec@on A proposal -‐ if they have passed this in the examina@on, they should not be made to re-‐sit this again if failed sec@on B. This does not reward as a pass if made to re-‐sit. A fail is a fail and a fail should act as a re-‐sit only.
What the Members said about New CMRE Challenge Pathway
9 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
MRIA Courses Pathways Current & New
• The current MRIA Courses pathway has the following requirements: – University Graduate – Comple@on of 12 MRIA core courses – Minimum 2 years experience – Pass the 7 hour, 2 part CMRE – MRIA Ethics Course
• The new version adds a minimum 4 years experience working under the supervision of a CMRP holder.
• The applicant will also have to write only Part A (a proposal) of the CMRE exam. Taking the place of Part B (general MR knowledge) the MRIA will accept the results of course marks obtained in a more rigorous level of tes@ng during the comple@on of their studies.
• There is a somewhat lower appropriateness response to the new pathway but it appears acceptable.
Extremely Appropriate
Very Appropriate
Somewhat Appropriate
Somewhat Inappropriate
Very Inappropriate
Highly Inappropriate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Courses Current Courses New
54%
39%
6%
16%
4.5
4.0
TOP TWO BOXES BOTTOM TWO AVERAGE "Appropriate" Ra@ng
10
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • Courses formalize the learning and help to fill in
knowledge gaps. Everyone taking a course is exposed to the same material. On-‐the-‐job learning can, in some cases be narrowly-‐focussed and /or may not include the theory behind the prac@ce.
• MRIA Courses are par@cularly effec@ve for those who are already in the research industry or working full @me and discovered they really like it. It is a way of a8aining the designa@on without having to drop out of work and take the post-‐grad programs.
• It offers assurances that those who take these courses have successfully mastered the techniques used in market research
• Good op@on for researchers who are from other industries/jobs or who have liberal arts degrees to become professional researchers; good for mid-‐career changers to gain necessary training without going back to school.
• The courses cover a broad range of topics, exercises and case studies that a marke@ng professional should be knowledgeable about. And then the minimum of 2 years work experience allows them to see this knowledge come to life in a prac@cal environment.
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • Courses to educate is good but the person s@ll needs to
learn the skills and achieve high standards of work through prac@cal experience in the profession which only comes with @me, if the person does it right.
• I feel the designa@on itself is inappropriate, therefore, any pathway to it is inappropriate.
• Work experience is too limited, should be at least double what it is now. Exams need to be more challenging. I know clients who don't trust work done by those who got their CMRP via the first two pathways. What purpose does that serve?
• MRIA courses do not come close to replica@ng the experience required
• Not all the MRIA courses are applicable or appropriate for all members. It also creates a pathway that may force people to take courses from the MRIA (a bit monopolis@c) in order to obtain their designa@on.
What the Members said about Current MRIA Courses Pathway
11 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • I think the proposed changes will help, although I
maintain that the costs remain high. • You will acquire the general knowledge as you prac@ce
in your field. • It makes the CMRP more accessible and recognizes the
achievements already documented in their course ac@vi@es.
• I agree that Part B of the exam (General Knowledge) can be eliminated since these people have already completed the MRIA courses.
• Bonne forma@on générale jumélée avec une diplôma@on et de l'expérience
• The MRIA courses provide general knowledge so it makes sense for this por@on of the exam to be removed. I like the fact that the proposal component of the exam has been retained.
• I don't object to what's being suggested; there's nothing offensive or bothersome about it. In short, I have no strong feelings about this ma8er, but I'm acquiescent.
• The appren@ceship style learning is a great idea. Where do the mentors come from though, what if there is no CMRP where they work, do they have to leave or is a mentor assigned from MRIA? I s@ll think 2 years is too short and it should be at least 3 even if only 1 of those years is under a CMRP.
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • MRIA should focus on the quality of the designa@on, not
the quan@ty. Courses do not provide experience on the job. Inexperienced CMRPs can bring down the standard of the en@re marke@ng research profession.
• Many professionals may not have a CMRP designated professional accessible, therefore some people would be excluded from obtaining the designa@on unless they meet the 10 year criteria.
• Same as with Post-‐Grad -‐ Part B is important. The exam is currently long and gruelling (as it should be).
• Too li8le real world experience. I do like the appren@ceship idea. Am not fond of commi8ees approving this, please leave that to someone qualified and paid to make such assessments.
• With no general knowledge test, nothing has been done to evaluate the knowledge of applicants, unless MRIA courses are different from when I took them. They would need to have a rigorous exam to pass the course. And MRIA would not have to have an incen@ve to pass as many people as possible.
• Too much weight given to having a university degree, and the applicant should have a minimum of 7 or 8 years' experience in the industry.
What the Members said about New MRIA Courses Pathway
12 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
Post Graduate Pathway Current & New
• The current Post Graduate pathway has the following requirements: – University Graduate – Graduate of an MRIA Approved Post
Graduate Program – Minimum 2 years experience – Pass the 7 hour, 2 part CMRE – MRIA Ethics Course
• The new version adds a minimum 4 years experience working under the supervision of a CMRP holder (effec@ve as of 2016).
• The applicant will also have to write only Part A (a proposal) of the CMRE exam. Taking the place of Part B (general MR knowledge) the MRIA will accept the results of course marks obtained in their Post Graduate program.
• There is a somewhat lower appropriateness response to the new pathway but it appears acceptable.
Extremely Appropriate
Very Appropriate
Somewhat Appropriate
Somewhat Inappropriate
Very Inappropriate
Highly Inappropriate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Post Grad Current Post Grad New
53%
41%
8%
16%
4.5
4.0
TOP TWO BOXES BOTTOM TWO AVERAGE "Appropriate" Ra@ng
13
• The graduate-‐level programs are the most up-‐to-‐date and intensive programs available. I would say these programs and the content delivered through them are even more appropriate than a university degree due to the specific nature of the content.
• Those comple@ng a post grad program have already achieved competency and their ability has already been ve8ed.
• The specifically designed programs to align with the CMRP, e.g. MBIR at Algonquin and the RAP at Georgian, provide tailored and in depth knowledge, skills and work experience. The graduates have a strong grounding in all relevant aspects of the profession.
• A university degree establishes the individual as someone with breadth of knowledge as well as some specializa@on. The tenure requirements and courses provide this individual with prac@cal skills. The ethics por@on is par@cularly appropriate.
• It seems to be a8rac@ng some promising people into the industry and giving them a good grounding.
• It's not too onerous and likely compares favourably with similar programs in other unlicensed professions
“Highly /Very Appropriate” “Very/Highly Inappropriate” • You shouldn't have to take a designated research
program. This is the beauty of research -‐ diversity of backgrounds.
• The requirement to take the 7 hour exam is redundant since the person has already acquired post grad program and has at least 2 years MR experience.
• A kid out of the block is a cer@fied CMRP. you must be kidding
• I feel the designa@on itself is inappropriate, therefore, any pathway to it is inappropriate.
• Work experience is too limited, should be at least double what it is now. Exams need to be more challenging. I know clients who don't trust work done by those who got their CMRP via the first two pathways. What purpose does that serve?
• 2 years of experience is too li8le. It should be at least 5 and a sa@sfactory resume to go with it.
• Not enough prac@cal years of experience. not enough years of experience in the industry -‐ if the CMRP is a professional designa@on, prac@cal experience is essen@al
• More experience should be required, not limited to passing the courses.
What the Members said about Current Post Graduate Challenge Pathway
14 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • The changes make the CMRP more accessible and
recognize the efforts already documented in their studies.
• I agree with dele@ng the general por@on of the CMRE exam since now the employment is under the supervision of a CMRP and the post grad program would have covered that component
• It makes sense that the general knowledge por@on of the exam is removed assuming that general knowledge is obtained in post grad programs. I like the fact that the proposal por@on of the exam would be retained.
• I like the idea of adding an appren@ceship to the program. I don't necessarily agree that Part B should be deleted -‐ seems like it is a good standardized test of general knowledge.
• the 2 year appren@ceship style format is an excellent idea and helps with my reserva@ons about 2 years being a short @me. I s@ll think 3,4 or 5 years would be more appropriate though. I don't fully understand how the appren@ce program would work though, there has to be a CMRP at their workplace? What if they don't have one?
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • MRIA should focus on the quality of CMRP, not the
quan@ty. Educa@on does not provide experience on the job. Given enough inexperience CMRP, they can pull down the standard of the en@re industry.
• There are no where near enough CMRPs to mentor these people, especially in certain areas of the country. will greatly restrict job opportuni@es for new graduates, e.g. those who wish to work in a small firm.
• Part B is a cri@cal element of the exam as it tests specific knowledge, exam writers can easily hide their lack of knowledge and shortcomings in Part A.
• I'm not sure someone with only 2 years industry experience will have sufficient understanding of how to write a proposal to pass that element. Most juniors start by managing projects/wri@ng reports and graduate to proposals at a later date.
• Not enough emphasis put on industry experience and the applicant does not have to challenge the general knowledge por@on of the CMRE.
• With removal of the general knowledge sec@on, the bo8om falls out of the founda@on which makes up a research professional. The no@on that this general knowledge would not be required quite frankly scares me.
What the Members said about New Post Graduate Challenge Pathway
15 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
Experienced Prac@@oner Pathway
• This pathway is a new approach intended to provide broader opportuni@es for MRIA members to achieve the CMRP designa@on.
• The Experienced Prac@@oner pathway is available to MRIA members with a minimum of 10 years prac@cal experience.
• Experienced Prac@@oners will be required to submit a detailed applica@on showing their levels of experience in specific MR areas including a specific descrip@on of a research project that they feel best indicates their experience and capabili@es.
• The applica@on will be required to be supported by 2 current CMRP holders. It will be evaluated by the Cer@fica@on Advisory Commi8ee before the designa@on is granted on the basis of having demonstrated skills appropriate to a CMRP throughout their career.
• This approach achieved results that are comparable to the highest rated CMRE pathway.
Extremely Appropriate
Very Appropriate
Somewhat Appropriate
Somewhat Inappropriate
Very Inappropriate
Highly Inappropriate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Experience Prac@@oner
56%
13%
4.4
TOP TWO BOXES BOTTOM TWO AVERAGE "Appropriate" Ra@ng
16
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • I feel this is the single most relevant change to the
program, and the one most likely to make the designa@on meaningful. This will allow those who want the designa@on to make a detailed case -‐ and experienced, skilled researchers should have li8le to no difficulty doing so. I, for one, would be amongst the first to apply should this be ins@tuted.
• this is essen@ally the grandfathering approach. Realis@cally, you can't expect somebody like this to take courses and write exams -‐-‐ their sheer longevity/success shows that they know what they're doing. Were I a client who had been happy with my consultant's work, but then found out that they couldn't have the CMRP despite years of experience and despite having done good work for me, it would diminish my respect for the designa@on (BTW, I HAVE been a client)
• Only the strong survive. This designa@on should be one of merit. When you show appropriate growth in your career path, it speaks to the idea that you are good at building rela@onships and building business. The prerequisite for these two builds is founded on a solid understanding of the hard skills per@nent to market research.
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • I think the last thing the MRIA need is another secret process
where only a few members get to sit in judgment of the rest. If there is an exam it is a case of pass or fail. But the applica@on to a board and then some hearing is very distasteful. Reminds me of the secret way in which fellows are selected. Ul@mately, I'm not sure of the goal of this en@re process. Seems to me that people don't undertake the CMRP because it is not relevant to the industry. How will having 5 ways in which you can get your CMRP address this?
• Just because you're doing something for a long @me doesn't mean you do a good job. There's very li8le opportunity to test that out here. I don't care whether they do courses, exam, boot camp or whatever, but no one should get a CMRP for doing nothing.
• There are many CMRP's who have taken the ini@a@ve to write the exam and this pathway doesn't honour that. In my mind, it is too easy to have this put in place and doesn't show the commitment to the designa@on.
• Although there has been an honest effort to increase the level of scru@ny the candidate undergoes this path remains grandfathering by another name. In addi@on, the proposal submi8ed by the candidate outlining her/his experience will put too much emphasis on their ability to spin a story. Aside from the ethics component (which is important) there is no systema@c method for ensuring that the candidate has the required skills and knowledge.
What the Members said about New Experienced PracFFoner Pathway
17 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
Boot Camp Pathway • This pathway is also a new approach intended to
provide broader opportuni@es for MRIA members to achieve the CMRP designa@on.
• The Boot Camp pathway will be available to MRIA members with a minimum of 10 years prac@cal experience.
• This pathway is a new approach intended to specifically address senior MRIA execu@ves who are cri@cal to the development of the CMRP.
• While the total level of support for the Boot Camp path is slightly more modest, there is interest from the members who are older (40+), although not necessarily those who hold senior management posi@ons in the industry.
Extremely Appropriate
Very Appropriate
Somewhat Appropriate
Somewhat Inappropriate
Very Inappropriate
Highly Inappropriate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Boot Camp
41%
21%
3.9
TOP TWO BOXES BOTTOM TWO AVERAGE "Appropriate" Ra@ng 18
“Highly /Very Appropriate” • This sounds like a good refresher course, and suitable for
those who are not "experienced prac@@oners" but s@ll have some years of experience.
• From a @me management perspec@ve this is a good op@on. I also like the idea of the MBA approach, learning from other experienced professionals -‐ also provides a level set on ethics.
• This combines the best of all worlds where you can get the academic experience with the prac@cal experience and take care of everything in session. Costs and ability to do preliminary study work (textbook prior to boot camp) would be considera@ons.
• I understand this path to provide reassurance of competence that is equivalent to the MRIA courses. I believe that the weekend boot camp will be a be8er method of iden@fying new designates than the courses provide. People who keep up with the pace of boot camp are demonstra@ng that they can keep up the pace demanded in professional work.
• Boot Camps are generally intensive and provide good depth of learning in a short period of @me.
• BOOT CAMP gives learners an opportunity to learn from each other, to do case work and to share their experiences. Ques@ons raised in this sejng will inevitably lead to more ques@ons and will likely benefit the group as a whole. Spending @me with other researchers 'aher hours' will help build and solidify rela@onships. There is immediate, relevant discussion that will naturally take place over a pint of beer or a cup of coffee aher class.
“Very/Highly Inappropriate” • Very insul@ng to those who have decades of experience.
And at the same @me, sugges@ng that someone is suddenly creden@aled thanks to a few days away is silly.
• Even worse than the experienced prac@@oner as these individuals are likely to be even further removed from the reali@es of on-‐the-‐ground research...
• everyone should have to write the cer@fica@on test -‐ professional cer@fica@on requires proof of knowledge and passing the CMRE -‐ again its a professional designa@on of cer@fica@on that must be earned, not a membership fee that is simply paid -‐ the full CMRE should s@ll have to be wri8en and passed
• This is the craziest idea -‐ minimum 8 years experience and short quizzes? I can only imagine what this would cost. It's basically a MRIA Conference without young people and breakout sessions.
• I honestly don't think you can compare a 4 day weekend to an 8 month long intense post grad course. Aren't execu@ve MBAs much longer than one weekend ? You would need top notch coaching and stringent screening.
• Sounds nice and good, however it is hopelessly flawed to think that someone (or any employer) will be willing to spend the thousands of dollars needed to fund an individuals a8empt at this. Surely the cost and @me commitment will be too high.
What the Members said about New Boot Camp Pathway
19 Selected Illustra@ve Members’ Comments
Likelihood of Obtaining CMRP by Pathway Op@ons
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Experience Prac@@oner
Boot Camp
Courses New
Challenge New
Post Grad New
40%
21%
10%
7%
6%
Extremely/Very Likely to Obtain CMRP Using Pathway
• The objec@ve of the development of new CMRP Pathways was intended to increase the level of the membership that hold the designa@on.
• It is felt necessary to again a8empt to gain a “cri@cal mass” base of CMRP holders, including the majority of senior business leaders in order to perpetuate its existence.
• As such the effec@veness of the Experienced Prac@@oner and Boot Camp pathways significantly exceeds the levels achieved by current approaches, even with modifica@ons to make them more accessible.
The PD&C CommiWee feels strongly that all opFonal
new pathways are worthy of inclusion for CMRP qualificaFon to achieve the desired base level for the associaFon to grow the designaFon to be
self-‐sustaining.
Note: Asked only of non-‐holders of CMRP n=181 20