UK dataswitch to US
Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.
analysing data to support decision-making processes, determining which topics to research based on project goals and stakeholder needs and executing specialised research projects to gather and analyse data for specific purposes. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: analysing data to support decision-making processes. The tasks, though, are not you.
It would be a lie to soften that; agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers is what this work rebuilds around. The plan below starts there.
Your week, as this page understands it
Job holders in this unit group advise on the formulation and implementation of policy in the public and private sectors, develop and implement substantial business, statistical and administrative systems, and perform a variety of functions not elsewhere classified in minor group 243: Business, research and administrative professionals. The job title says “business”, “research” or “administrative professionals n.e.c.”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c. is not one task. It is 55 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 59%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 20%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 61 out of 100 (55–67 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 55 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c. is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
32 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Analysing data to support decision-making processes
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2439/01Source: “Analyse data to support decision-making processes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analysing data to inform a decision is one of the clearest strengths of these tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing and interpreting data to draw conclusions
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2439/01Source: “Analyse and interpret data to draw conclusions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analysing data and drawing conclusions is desk work that software already does well, though a person still checks the reasoning.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing and reporting on the development of specific policy issues
This is reading one thing and writing another: the development of specific policy issues in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2439/01Source: “Analyse and report on the development of specific policy issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Policy analysis and write-up happen entirely at a screen, using documents software can read and summarise.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights
This is reading one thing and writing another: large-scale data sets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding patterns in large datasets is one of the strongest things these tools do, working directly on workplace data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
12 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Advising policy makers on public service strategies
The software now makes the first pass at policy makers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2439/01Source: “Advise policy makers on public service strategies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Advice papers can be drafted from published evidence, though what will work politically comes from local judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating the effectiveness of programmes to achieve desired outcomes
The software now makes the first pass at the effectiveness of programmes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Evaluate the effectiveness of programmes to achieve desired outcomes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Judging whether a programme worked needs local outcome data and judgement, so software gives only a partial draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Forecasting the impact of political or international developments
The software now makes the first pass at the impact of political, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Forecast the impact of political or international developments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Forecasting political effects depends on judgement and private context, so software offers a starting draft rather than an answer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Staying human
11 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers
The value here is that a specific person handles project requirements and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Agree on project requirements with policy officials and ministers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Agreeing requirements with ministers is a negotiation between people, so software can only prepare the papers beforehand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting consultations with internal stakeholders
The value here is that a specific person handles consultations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Conduct consultations with internal stakeholders, including colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Consulting colleagues depends on live conversation and reading the room, so software can only prepare and write up the session.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting with experts to inform policy development
The value here is that a specific person handles experts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Consult with experts to inform policy development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting expert input relies on live conversations and existing relationships, so software mainly helps prepare questions and notes.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 45 tasks
Keeping detailed records of decisions to support policy development
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: detailed records of decisions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Keep detailed records of decisions to support policy development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (81–95 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recording decisions accurately is note-taking and filing, which software does reliably, with the chair confirming the record.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Explaining complex ideas and findings in a way that can be easily understood
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: complex ideas in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Explain complex ideas and findings in a way that can be easily understood.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 85 out of 100 (81–89 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning complicated findings into plain language is exactly the kind of writing software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Conducting research on specific topics
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Conduct research on specific topics.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching a topic means reading and pulling together published material, one of the things software does best.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Drafting reports providing relevant evidence
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: reports providing relevant evidence in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Draft reports providing relevant evidence, analyses, conclusions, and recommendations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting an evidence-based report is writing work, and software produces good first drafts from supplied material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Monitoring social, political and economic developments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: social, political and economic developments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Monitor social, political, and economic developments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scanning news and official sources for relevant developments is monitoring work software does quickly and continuously.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Commenting on draft research instruments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: draft research instruments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Comment on draft research instruments, such as questionnaires.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Commenting on questionnaire drafts uses well-documented survey methods that software knows thoroughly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Disseminating research findings through technical reports or scientific articles in journals
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: research findings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Disseminate research findings through technical reports or scientific articles in journals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up findings for reports or journals is drafting work software does well from supplied results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Editing draft reports
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: draft reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Edit draft reports.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Editing drafts for clarity and consistency is one of the strongest things text software does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing speeches, correspondence and policy papers for governmental
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: speeches, correspondence and policy papers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Speeches, letters and policy papers are drafting jobs software does well, with a person adding the political voice.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Testing theories using data from surveys
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: theories in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Test theories using data from surveys, newspapers, and statistical sources.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Testing ideas against survey and statistical data is analysis software performs well on documented sources.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Writing and monitoring communications to ensure consistency and accuracy
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: communications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Write and monitor communications to ensure consistency and accuracy.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing communications and checking them for consistency is drafting and proofreading, both strong areas for software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Designing opinion polls to collect data
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: opinion polls in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Design opinion polls to collect data.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Poll and survey design follows well-documented methods that software can apply to a stated research question.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Responding to internal and external research enquiries
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: internal and external research enquiries in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Respond to internal and external research enquiries.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Answering research enquiries from documented sources is well suited to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing the operations of governments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the operations of governments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Analyse the operations of governments, businesses, and organisations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Studying how organisations work is document-based research, which software handles well once the internal material is available.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research within specified time frames to align with policy requirements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: research within specified time frames in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Conduct research within specified time frames to align with policy requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Gathering and summarising evidence to a deadline is reading and writing work software does quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contributing to the evaluation of policy interventions
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the evaluation of policy interventions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Contribute to the evaluation of policy interventions using measures such as effectiveness, efficiency, customer satisfaction, and value for money, either at set stages or continually, depending on stakeholder requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Evaluating a policy against agreed measures is analysis of data and documents, though the final judgement stays with a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting policies, public issues and legislation
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: policies, public issues and legislation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Interpret policies, public issues, and legislation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Interpreting legislation and policy is close reading of documents, which software does well with a person confirming it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting quality control checks on research methodologies and findings
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: quality control checks in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Conduct quality control checks on research methodologies and findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking research methods and findings for errors is systematic review work software performs consistently.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing and responding to policy-related information requests
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: policy-related information requests in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Manage and respond to policy-related information requests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Answering policy information requests means finding and restating existing material, which software does quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reporting on the progress of these priorities
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the progress of these priorities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Report on the progress of these priorities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Progress reporting pulls status information into a written update, a routine writing job for software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Keeping up to date with relevant academic literature
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: to date in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Keep up to date with relevant academic literature, developments in data science, techniques (e.g. behavioural insights) and contribute to wider debates within the organisation and economic profession.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (63–77 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with literature and new techniques is reading and summarising, though joining internal debates stays human.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Publishing or presenting theories based on historical research
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: theories in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Publish or present theories based on historical research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (63–77 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up and publishing historical research is documented, text-based work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing written briefings for policy colleagues and ministers based on research evidence
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: written briefings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Prepare written briefings for policy colleagues and ministers based on research evidence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Briefings follow a set structure and draw on written evidence, so first drafts can be produced reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing drafts of legislative proposals for governmental
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: drafts of legislative proposals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Write drafts of legislative proposals for governmental use.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts legislative text well, but the wording must be settled by lawyers who are answerable for it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying informed about recent government policy decisions relevant to the job role
shifting to AIIt is the same call made over and over on informed, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Stay informed about recent government policy decisions relevant to the job role.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Government policy is published and easy to summarise, but staying genuinely current is something you do yourself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Making recommendations to institutions and organisations based on assessments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: recommendations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Make recommendations to institutions and organisations based on assessments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recommendations follow from documented assessments, so software can draft them, though the person signing them decides.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing generalist advice on policy development
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: generalist advice in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Provide generalist advice on policy development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: General policy advice draws on documented rules and precedent, so software can draft it for a person to check.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Briefing team members on relevant developments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: team members in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Brief team members on relevant developments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Briefings are written summaries of known developments, and software drafts those well even if a person delivers them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Employing various research methodologies for internal research
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at various research methodologies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Employ various research methodologies for internal research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Applying research methods includes collecting and handling real data, so software helps with parts rather than the whole.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Publishing scientific papers detailing research findings
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at scientific papers detailing research findings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Publish scientific papers detailing research findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting and formatting a paper is well supported by software, but the new findings come from the researcher.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Defining and agreeing on the specific terms of reference for a research project
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at the specific terms of reference, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Define and agree on the specific terms of reference for a research project.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft terms of reference, but agreeing them with sponsors is a conversation between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Using evidence to make policy decisions and inform evaluation of past and present policies
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at evidence, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Use evidence to make policy decisions and inform evaluation of past and present policies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Deciding policy is an accountable human judgement, even though software can assemble and weigh the evidence behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining which topics to research based on project goals and stakeholder needs
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at topics, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Determine which topics to research based on project goals and stakeholder needs.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Choosing what to research is a judgement about priorities and who needs the answer, so software suggests rather than decides.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Executing specialised research projects to gather and analyse data for specific purposes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at specialised research projects, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Execute specialised research projects to gather and analyse data for specific purposes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running a research project includes collecting data and managing fieldwork, not just the analysis software can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing competitive tendering exercises
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at competitive tendering exercises, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Manage competitive tendering exercises.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can draft tender documents, but running a fair competition needs an accountable officer making the calls.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering oral briefings to update stakeholders on policy changes and operational procedures
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at oral briefings, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Deliver oral briefings to update stakeholders on policy changes and operational procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can write the briefing, but standing up and delivering it to stakeholders is still a person's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering oral presentations to communicate policy proposals and research findings
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at oral presentations, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Deliver oral presentations to communicate policy proposals and research findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Preparing a presentation is easy for software; delivering it convincingly to an audience is not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating and supporting meetings, conferences and debates
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put meetings, conferences and debates well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Coordinate and support meetings, conferences, and debates.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Coordinating meetings and events involves being there and handling the room, as well as the paperwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing advice on business decisions with other managers
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles advice and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Provide advice on business decisions with other managers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising fellow managers on decisions relies on persuasion and shared context in live discussion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Carrying out interviews for qualitative data collection
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles interviews and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Carry out interviews for qualitative data collection.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Interviewing people for research depends on live conversation and follow-up questions asked in the moment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing and coordinating research projects to achieve policy objectives
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles research projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2439/01Source: “Oversee and coordinate research projects to achieve policy objectives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Overseeing researchers means managing people and being answerable for the work, which software cannot take on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing the delivery of political or organisational priorities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the delivery of political and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Manage the delivery of political or organisational priorities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Delivering organisational priorities means holding people to account and steering work, which software cannot do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Working in close partnership with external research contractors
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles close partnership and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2439/01Source: “Work in close partnership with external research contractors, other government analysts, and policy colleagues during the course of the research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working closely with contractors and colleagues over months depends on relationships software cannot hold.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Mentoring inexperienced and junior staff
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles inexperienced and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Mentor inexperienced and junior staff when required.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Mentoring works because a junior colleague trusts a specific person over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving on committees to influence organisational strategy and decision-making
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2439/01Source: “Serve on committees to influence organisational strategy and decision-making.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Influence in a committee comes from a person in the room with standing and relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- £58,300a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
- People doing this job
- 104,500in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: policy makers in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analysing data to support decision-making processes and analysing and interpreting data to draw conclusions. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what project requirements run on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: analysing data to support decision-making processes is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 59% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 20% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 55 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of policy makers you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of policy makers, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is analysing data to support decision-making processes” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c. (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was other researchers, unspecified discipline: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 23.6% less. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 59% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “advise policy makers on public service strategies” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Other researchers, unspecified discipline
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already respond to internal and external research enquiries, and their equivalent is to maintain working relationships and communicate effectively with internal and external stakeholders. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £44,580 against your £58,341, 23.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Office managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already deliver oral presentations to communicate policy proposals and research findings, and their equivalent is to deliver presentations to senior management on these findings. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £38,630 against your £58,341, 33.8% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Actuaries, economists and statisticians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor social, political, and economic developments, and their equivalent is to develop and implement economic policies. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 62% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (64/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 59% of its task weight, across 55 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: agreeing on project requirements with policy officials and ministers is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United Kingdom figures
The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Project Management Specialists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United States page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In US official statistics this job is counted as Project Management Specialists and Business Operations Specialists, All Other. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
In England:
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
In Wales:
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for business / research / administrative professionals n.e.c., and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 59% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for business / research / administrative professionals n.e.c.. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for business / research / administrative professionals n.e.c. launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 55 official task statements scored for Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c. (United Kingdom, SOC 2439), 59% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 61 out of 100 (range 55–67, band: high). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Analyse data to support decision-making processes” (93/100, very high); “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights” (93/100, very high); “Keep detailed records of decisions to support policy development” (88/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.” stay human?
- About 20% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Serve on committees to influence organisational strategy and decision-making” (13/100, minimal); “Mentor inexperienced and junior staff when required” (18/100, minimal); “Work in close partnership with external research contractors, other government analysts, and policy colleagues during the course of the research” (23/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 59% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 20% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c. calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 55 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
About the data on this page
- Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
- This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- gaisi-index (relatedness)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.