All Member Open Forum

------------------------------
Abdullah Shaman
Head of maintenance & Planning and Follow-up at Tabuk Military city
Ministry of Defense Saudi Arabia
Tabuk
------------------------------

Thank you for sharing this so openly and respectfully. I can genuinely relate to everything you have described here.

I wrote the same CMRT exam last year and had a very similar experience. Like you, I prepared strictly based on the CMRT Candidate Handbook and the published outline, expecting a technician-focused assessment centered on practices, procedures, observable conditions, and corrective actions. What I encountered instead felt much closer to judgment-based, scenario-driven questions that required implicit engineering reasoning, schematic interpretation, and system-level analysis, often without sufficient contextual data to ground the decision.

That disconnect was honestly frustrating. It wasn't so much the difficulty of the questions, but the misalignment between the stated scope and the actual exam style. I remember leaving the exam feeling less like I had been tested on "what a technician does" and more on how well I could infer design intent or theoretical system behavior under ambiguity.

Because of that experience, I made the deliberate decision to pause before attempting the exam again. Personally, I don't appreciate writing the same exam twice in my career unless I'm confident I'm preparing against the right benchmark. Rather than rushing a retake, I chose to step back, reassess the gap between the handbook and the exam reality, and look for more suitable study materials and approaches that better reflect the way the questions are actually framed.

Your observation about cavitation is a very good example of this misalignment. The handbook frames cavitation in terms of identification and observable damage-exactly how a technician would encounter it in the field. But the exam's focus on system-level prevention decisions (suction vs discharge, flow vs pressure adjustments, etc.) without full system context pushes the question into an engineering reasoning space. That shift in intent fundamentally changes how candidates need to prepare.

The certification numbers you referenced are also worth reflecting on. While CMRT and CMRP target different audiences, the disparity does raise a fair question about accessibility, clarity of scope, and first-time success for the CMRT audience it is meant to serve.

I am sharing this not as criticism, but as reinforcement of your point. Greater transparency and alignment between the handbook, learning objectives, and actual exam design would go a long way in helping candidates prepare effectively and confidently.

I had also be very interested in hearing from others, especially those who passed, about:

• How they prepared beyond the handbook

• What types of resources or experiences helped bridge this gap

• Whether they approached the exam more like an engineering judgment test than a technician certification

Thanks again for starting this conversation. It's an important one.

------------------------------
Ibraheem Okekunle
Maintenance Coordinator
Cronos Group
Barrie ON
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-07-2026 08:58 AM
From: Abdullah Shaman
Subject: cmrt exame

Hi everyone,

 

I took the Certified Maintenance & Reliability Technician (CMRT) exam a few hours ago, based on the CMRT Candidate Handbook and outline published on the SMRP website. Unfortunately, I did not achieve the required passing score.

 

However, I would like to share an observation for discussion and clarification. Based on my experience, the exam content and style were very different from what the Candidate Handbook describes. The questions were less academic or procedure-based and felt closer to interview-style judgment questions, with a strong emphasis on interpretation, implicit engineering concepts, visual identification, and schematic understanding.

 

In several cases, the exam appeared to assess engineering-level reasoning and drawing interpretation, rather than technician-focused practices and procedures. Additionally, the question style seemed intentionally designed to avoid familiarity with simulation or practice questions, which made preparation based on published materials difficult to align with the actual exam experience.

 

One additional observation that may be relevant is the certification data published in the SMRP Certification Directory. According to the directory, there are currently approximately 967 CMRT-certified professionals, compared to over 9,300 CMRP-certified professionals. While these certifications target different roles, this disparity may indicate that the CMRT exam structure or scope presents challenges for its intended audience, particularly for first-time candidates.

 

For example, in the CMRT Candidate Handbook, cavitation is addressed with questions such as:

 

"What type of mechanical damage to a centrifugal pump can be caused by cavitation?"

with answers focused on observable effects (e.g., pitting and erosion).

 

However, in the actual exam, cavitation was tested in a very different way. Instead of identifying damage or symptoms, the questions focused on how to prevent cavitation, such as whether it should be controlled from the suction side or discharge side, or by increasing or decreasing flow or pressure-without providing sufficient system details.

This approach requires engineering-level system analysis and fluid dynamics reasoning, rather than technician-level identification, inspection, or corrective practices as described in the handbook. The difference in question intent made it difficult to align preparation based on the official study materials with the actual exam expectations.

I am sharing this feedback respectfully, as I believe clearer alignment between the official handbook, stated scope, and actual exam content would benefit candidates and improve transparency.

 

I would appreciate hearing from other candidates or SMRP representatives regarding their experiences and any guidance for future preparation.

 

Thank you.

------------------------------
Abdullah Shaman
Head of maintenance & Planning and Follow-up at Tabuk Military city
Ministry of Defense Saudi Arabia
Tabuk
------------------------------

Abullah and Ibrahim,

I think that you bring up some very good points.. 

I am curious as to anyone else's thoughts regarding Ricky Smith's LinkedIn post. He holds a CMRT certification. 

I do have the "Industrial Machinery Repair" book but I have not really read through it extensively yet since I am currently focused on the PMP exam. I am not sure if that book would cover enough technician/engineering detail that Abdullah and Ibrahim were referring to on their tests. 

CMRT Exam Recommendations | LinkedIn

Chris Lee

------------------------------
Christopher Lee
Maintenance Manager
Ecolab
Martinsburg WV
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2026 08:03 AM
From: Ibraheem Okekunle
Subject: cmrt exame

Thank you for sharing this so openly and respectfully. I can genuinely relate to everything you have described here.

I wrote the same CMRT exam last year and had a very similar experience. Like you, I prepared strictly based on the CMRT Candidate Handbook and the published outline, expecting a technician-focused assessment centered on practices, procedures, observable conditions, and corrective actions. What I encountered instead felt much closer to judgment-based, scenario-driven questions that required implicit engineering reasoning, schematic interpretation, and system-level analysis, often without sufficient contextual data to ground the decision.

That disconnect was honestly frustrating. It wasn't so much the difficulty of the questions, but the misalignment between the stated scope and the actual exam style. I remember leaving the exam feeling less like I had been tested on "what a technician does" and more on how well I could infer design intent or theoretical system behavior under ambiguity.

Because of that experience, I made the deliberate decision to pause before attempting the exam again. Personally, I don't appreciate writing the same exam twice in my career unless I'm confident I'm preparing against the right benchmark. Rather than rushing a retake, I chose to step back, reassess the gap between the handbook and the exam reality, and look for more suitable study materials and approaches that better reflect the way the questions are actually framed.

Your observation about cavitation is a very good example of this misalignment. The handbook frames cavitation in terms of identification and observable damage-exactly how a technician would encounter it in the field. But the exam's focus on system-level prevention decisions (suction vs discharge, flow vs pressure adjustments, etc.) without full system context pushes the question into an engineering reasoning space. That shift in intent fundamentally changes how candidates need to prepare.

The certification numbers you referenced are also worth reflecting on. While CMRT and CMRP target different audiences, the disparity does raise a fair question about accessibility, clarity of scope, and first-time success for the CMRT audience it is meant to serve.

I am sharing this not as criticism, but as reinforcement of your point. Greater transparency and alignment between the handbook, learning objectives, and actual exam design would go a long way in helping candidates prepare effectively and confidently.

I had also be very interested in hearing from others, especially those who passed, about:

• How they prepared beyond the handbook

• What types of resources or experiences helped bridge this gap

• Whether they approached the exam more like an engineering judgment test than a technician certification

Thanks again for starting this conversation. It's an important one.

------------------------------
Ibraheem Okekunle
Maintenance Coordinator
Cronos Group
Barrie ON

Original Message:
Sent: 02-07-2026 08:58 AM
From: Abdullah Shaman
Subject: cmrt exame

Hi everyone,

 

I took the Certified Maintenance & Reliability Technician (CMRT) exam a few hours ago, based on the CMRT Candidate Handbook and outline published on the SMRP website. Unfortunately, I did not achieve the required passing score.

 

However, I would like to share an observation for discussion and clarification. Based on my experience, the exam content and style were very different from what the Candidate Handbook describes. The questions were less academic or procedure-based and felt closer to interview-style judgment questions, with a strong emphasis on interpretation, implicit engineering concepts, visual identification, and schematic understanding.

 

In several cases, the exam appeared to assess engineering-level reasoning and drawing interpretation, rather than technician-focused practices and procedures. Additionally, the question style seemed intentionally designed to avoid familiarity with simulation or practice questions, which made preparation based on published materials difficult to align with the actual exam experience.

 

One additional observation that may be relevant is the certification data published in the SMRP Certification Directory. According to the directory, there are currently approximately 967 CMRT-certified professionals, compared to over 9,300 CMRP-certified professionals. While these certifications target different roles, this disparity may indicate that the CMRT exam structure or scope presents challenges for its intended audience, particularly for first-time candidates.

 

For example, in the CMRT Candidate Handbook, cavitation is addressed with questions such as:

 

"What type of mechanical damage to a centrifugal pump can be caused by cavitation?"

with answers focused on observable effects (e.g., pitting and erosion).

 

However, in the actual exam, cavitation was tested in a very different way. Instead of identifying damage or symptoms, the questions focused on how to prevent cavitation, such as whether it should be controlled from the suction side or discharge side, or by increasing or decreasing flow or pressure-without providing sufficient system details.

This approach requires engineering-level system analysis and fluid dynamics reasoning, rather than technician-level identification, inspection, or corrective practices as described in the handbook. The difference in question intent made it difficult to align preparation based on the official study materials with the actual exam expectations.

I am sharing this feedback respectfully, as I believe clearer alignment between the official handbook, stated scope, and actual exam content would benefit candidates and improve transparency.

 

I would appreciate hearing from other candidates or SMRP representatives regarding their experiences and any guidance for future preparation.

 

Thank you.

------------------------------
Abdullah Shaman
Head of maintenance & Planning and Follow-up at Tabuk Military city
Ministry of Defense Saudi Arabia
Tabuk
------------------------------