Will AI replace IT project managers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 50 official task statements scored for IT project managers (United Kingdom, SOC 2131), 59% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 56 out of 100 (range 50–62, band: partial). 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 “IT project managers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Arrange meetings related to information technology projects” (93/100, very high); “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights” (93/100, very high); “Prepare product and process documentation by collecting, analysing, and summarising information and trends” (93/100, 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 “IT project managers” stay human?

About 26% 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: “Manage relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery” (13/100, minimal); “Negotiate with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials” (18/100, minimal); “Lead technology-based business change programs to achieve improved productivity and functionality” (18/100, minimal). 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 “IT project managers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 59% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 26% 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 IT project managers 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 50 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.

UK dataswitch to US

IT project managers

allocating resources effectively to meet project deadlines, coordinating the project team to keep them on track and managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery. 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: arranging meetings related to information technology projects. The tasks, though, are not you.

Your move: three real directions from here ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 59%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 26%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 56 out of 100 (50–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 50 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 it project managers 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.

It would be a lie to soften that; managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery is what this work rebuilds around. Your move starts there.

Your week, as this page understands it

IT project managers manage, coordinate and technically supervise specific IT projects of a discrete duration and/or budget. The job title says “it project managers”. The real job is the part underneath: managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery. 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 it project managers is not one task. It is 50 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 59%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 26%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

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.

24 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

29 tasks

Tasks 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.

Allocating resources effectively to meet project deadlines
This is reading one thing and writing another: resources in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2131/00
Source: “Allocate resources effectively to meet project deadlines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Working out who and what is needed to hit deadlines is planning work that 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 3/4.
Carrying out monitoring and controlling activities to track the progress of the project
This is reading one thing and writing another: monitoring in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2131/00
Source: “Carry out monitoring and control activities to track the progress of the project.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Tracking progress against plan is reporting work drawn straight from the project tools.
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.
Defining roles and producing schedules and timelines for tasks using tools like Gantt charts
This is reading one thing and writing another: roles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Define roles and produce schedules and timelines for tasks using tools like Gantt charts.” (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: Building roles, schedules and Gantt charts from a scope document is well within what planning software already produces.
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.
Assessing the levels of risk on a project
This is reading one thing and writing another: the levels of risk in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Assess the levels of risk on a project.” (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: Project risk assessment follows well-known methods and produces a solid register software drafts from project information.
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.

Changing shape

8 tasks

Tasks 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.

Coordinating tasks among team members to ensure project milestones are met
The software now makes the first pass at tasks among team members, 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 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Coordinate tasks among team members to ensure project milestones are met.” (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: Chasing and joining up work is partly scheduling and partly persuading people to move, which needs 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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining communication and controlling throughout project phases
The software now makes the first pass at communication, 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 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Maintain communication and control throughout project phases.” (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: Status reporting is easy to produce, but keeping people aligned through the project needs a person doing the talking.
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.
Managing the project to keep it on budget
The software now makes the first pass at the project, 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 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Manage the project to keep it on budget.” (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: Budget tracking is automatic, but keeping a project on course means pressing people for decisions.
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.

Staying human

13 tasks

Tasks 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.

Assigning duties, responsibilities and spans of authority to project personnel
The value here is that a specific person handles duties, responsibilities and spans of authority and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 2131/00
Source: “Assign duties, responsibilities, and spans of authority to project personnel.” (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: Handing out duties and authority is a decision people accept because of who makes 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Coordinating the project team to keep them on track
The value here is that a specific person handles the project team and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Coordinate the project team to keep them on track.” (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: Schedules can be produced automatically, but keeping a team on track is done through people.
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.
Managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery
The value here is that a specific person handles relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Manage relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery.” (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: Relationships between teams and partners are built person to person, and that is the actual output here.
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.

Show the other 40 tasks

Arranging meetings related to information technology projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: meetings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Arrange meetings related to information technology projects.” (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: Arranging project meetings is diary work software already does end to end.
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 large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights
shifting to AI
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 70 · 2131/00
Source: “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.
Preparing product and processing documentation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: product in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Prepare product and process documentation by collecting, analysing, and summarising information and trends.” (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: Collecting, analysing and summarising information into product and process documents is a core strength of writing 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Updating IT project schedules and allocate funding and staffing resources
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: IT project schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Update IT project schedules and allocate funding and staffing resources.” (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: Updating schedules and reallocating funding and people is structured system work once the changes are known.
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.
Developing implementation plans that include analyses
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: implementation plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop implementation plans that include analyses such as cost-benefit or return on investment (ROI).” (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: Cost-benefit and return-on-investment write-ups follow a standard shape and are drafted well from the project figures.
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.
Developing work breakdown structure, WBS) for information technology projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: work breakdown structure, wbs) in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop work breakdown structure (WBS) for information technology projects.” (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: A work breakdown follows well-known patterns, though it has to reflect how this organisation actually delivers.
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.
Identifying project requirements and developing a detailed work plan
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project requirements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Identify project requirements and develop a detailed work plan.” (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: Turning a job into a written work plan is structured planning that AI drafts 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring project milestones and deliverables
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project milestones in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Monitor project milestones and deliverables.” (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: Milestone and deliverable tracking is dashboard work pulled straight from project systems.
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.
Identifying need for initial or additional project resources
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: need in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Identify need for initial or additional project resources.” (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: Working out what extra resources a project needs is planning arithmetic done from the schedule and budget.
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.
Implementing risk-assessment methodologies to identify and mitigate potential risks
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: risk-assessment methodologies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Implement risk-assessment methodologies to identify and mitigate potential risks.” (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: Risk methods are widely published, so applying one and drafting the mitigations is work software does to a usable standard.
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 budgets to ensure efficient use of resources
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Manage budgets to ensure efficient use of resources.” (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: Managing a budget against actual spend is standard finance system work.
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.
Evaluating and selecting digital products and technologies to improve business efficiency
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: digital products in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Evaluate and select digital products and technologies to improve business efficiency.” (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: Comparing products against requirements is well suited to these tools, with a specialist confirming the fit for this business.
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.
Reviewing modifications to project plans
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: modifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Review modifications to project plans.” (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: Reviewing plan changes for impact and consistency is document checking software does reliably.
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.
Examining existing IT systems to assess their efficiency
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: IT systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Examine existing IT systems to assess their efficiency.” (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: Assessing how well existing systems perform uses data these tools read easily, though local context shapes the verdict.
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.
Allocating specific tasks among team members based on their skills and project requirements
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: specific tasks among team members in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Allocate specific tasks among team members based on their skills and project requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Matching tasks to skills is planning work software does well from a task list and a record of who can do what.
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.
Budgeting and allocating resources for the delivery of technology solutions
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: resources in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Budget and allocate resources for the delivery of technology solutions.” (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: Budget and resource plans follow familiar formats tools draft well, though the final call rests with 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying and managing risks to ensure delivery is on time
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: risks in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Identify and manage risks to ensure delivery is on time.” (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: Risk registers and delivery tracking follow established formats that project tools support.
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.
Working out budgets, teams and resources for the project
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets, teams and resources in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2131/00
Source: “Work out budgets, teams, and resources for the project.” (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: Working out budget, team size and resources is planning arithmetic drawn from the scope and rate cards.
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.
Developing annual budgets for information technology projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: annual budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop annual budgets for information technology projects.” (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: Annual project budgets follow a standard format and are drafted well from last year figures and the plan.
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.
Developing comprehensive business cases for new IT project features
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: comprehensive business cases in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop comprehensive business cases for new IT project features.” (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: Business cases follow a familiar structure, so a strong draft comes easily once the benefits are known.
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.
Evaluating successes and challenges of the project to enhance learning for future projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: successes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Evaluate successes and challenges of the project to enhance learning for future projects.” (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: Lessons-learned write-ups are standard documents drawn from project records and team feedback.
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.
Assessing customer priorities by conducting surveys or other methods
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: customer priorities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Assess customer priorities by conducting surveys or other methods.” (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: Designing surveys and analysing what customers rank highest is standard analysis work.
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.
Developing client-specific goals and objectives for project planning
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: client-specific goals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop client-specific goals and objectives for project planning.” (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: Turning a client's situation into written goals and objectives is standard drafting work from information already gathered.
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.
Planning and developing new IT provisions for major projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: new IT provisions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Plan and develop new IT provisions for major projects.” (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: Planning new IT provision is design and documentation work built on well-published patterns.
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.
Evaluating and selecting providers of services according to customer requirements
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: providers of services in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Evaluate and select providers of services according to customer requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Comparing providers against customer requirements is structured analysis, with the final choice discussed.
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.
Designing and maintaining secure network infrastructure solutions
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at secure network infrastructure solutions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Design and maintain secure network infrastructure solutions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Network design is desk work tools support well, but maintaining live infrastructure sometimes means being on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Implementing digital technologies to achieve specific organisational objectives
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at digital technologies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Implement digital technologies to achieve specific organisational objectives.” (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: Actually putting technology into an organisation involves coordinating people and systems, which tools assist rather than deliver.
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.
Identifying and evaluating suppliers for specific project needs
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at suppliers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Identify and evaluate suppliers for specific project needs.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding and comparing suppliers is largely research and scoring, with some checking in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Dealing with changes or delays in projects
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at changes, 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 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Deal with changes or delays in projects.” (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: Replanning around a delay is partly mechanical, but agreeing the new plan with the people affected 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.
Implementing necessary operational changes as identified during the review process
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at necessary operational changes, 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 · 2131/00
Source: “Implement necessary operational changes as identified during the review process.” (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: Writing up the changes is easy; getting teams to actually work differently is the hard part.
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.
Speaking with customers to assess customer needs or obtain feedback
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles customers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Speak with customers to assess customer needs or obtain feedback.” (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: Customers explain what they need in conversation, and reading what they leave unsaid depends on the person asking.
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.
Selecting project team members from internal and external stakeholder organisations
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles project team members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2131/00
Source: “Select project team members from internal and external stakeholder organisations.” (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: Picking team members depends on knowing people and negotiating their release, which is not written down anywhere.
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.
Monitoring the performance of project team members
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles the performance of project team members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Monitor the performance of project team members, providing and documenting performance feedback.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Performance feedback lands because a specific manager gives it, and the useful evidence is not all written down.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing initial ideas and acquire key information about potential projects
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles initial ideas and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Develop initial ideas and acquire key information about potential projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 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: Early ideas can be sketched quickly, but the useful information comes from meeting the client and seeing the space.
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 2/4.
Recruiting or hiring project personnel
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles project personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Recruit or hire project personnel.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (17–25 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring people onto a project turns on judgement and rapport built in interviews.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting technology solution plans and proposals to senior stakeholders
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technology solution plans and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Present technology solution plans and proposals to senior stakeholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 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: The proposal drafts easily, but presenting to senior stakeholders and answering them is a live performance.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles final approval and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2131/00
Source: “Obtain final approval on project deliverables from the client.” (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: Sign-off is a client deciding they trust the work, which is a conversation rather than a document.
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.
Demonstrating leadership and change management skills to manage technology-driven change
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles leadership and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Demonstrate leadership and change management skills to manage technology-driven change.” (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: Leading people through change depends on trust built face to face, something software cannot supply.
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.
Leading technology-based business change programs to achieve improved productivity and functionality
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technology-based business change programs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Lead technology-based business change programs to achieve improved productivity and functionality.” (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: Leading a business change programme rests on trust and influence with colleagues, which software cannot carry.
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.
Negotiating with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles project stakeholders and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2131/00
Source: “Negotiate with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Negotiating for resources depends on standing and relationships with the people deciding.
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.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £58,400a 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: 106,400in 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: tasks among team members in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: arranging meetings related to information technology projects and allocating resources effectively to meet project deadlines. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what relationships 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: arranging meetings related to information technology projects 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, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 26% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 50 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery, 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 tasks among team members 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 tasks among team members, 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 arranging meetings related to information technology projects” 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 managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery 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 IT project managers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was engineering project managers and project engineers: only about 21% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 59/41: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “assign duties, responsibilities, and spans of authority to project personnel”, and let the exposed end go.

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.

Engineering project managers and project engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “obtain final approval on project deliverables from the client”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 21% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 21% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Project support officers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “obtain final approval on project deliverables from the client”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 21% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 21% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £35,751 against your £58,373, 38.8% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Information technology professionals n.e.c.
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “lead technology-based business change programs to achieve improved productivity and functionality”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 9% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% 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 (63/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

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 50 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: managing relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery 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.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are arranging meetings related to information technology projects, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Computer and Information Systems Managers 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

In US official statistics this job is counted as Computer and Information Systems Managers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

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:
National Careers Service
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
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
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:
Skills Bootcamps
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
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers 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

A nearby route

There's no Space built for IT project managers yet.

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

The closest match is Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers, a community for coordinators, administrators and team leads who run their working day in Outlook, Teams, meetings, files and task lists. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: keeping tasks, actions and status in one place. It is written for general project owners, not for technical delivery leads. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

Try Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for IT project managers 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 IT project managers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 50 official task statements scored for IT project managers (United Kingdom, SOC 2131), 59% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 56 out of 100 (range 50–62, band: partial). 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 “IT project managers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Arrange meetings related to information technology projects” (93/100, very high); “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights” (93/100, very high); “Prepare product and process documentation by collecting, analysing, and summarising information and trends” (93/100, 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 “IT project managers” stay human?: About 26% 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: “Manage relationships between teams and partners to ensure successful IT project delivery” (13/100, minimal); “Negotiate with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials” (18/100, minimal); “Lead technology-based business change programs to achieve improved productivity and functionality” (18/100, minimal). 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 “IT project managers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 59% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 26% 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 IT project managers 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 50 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.
24 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.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

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}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. 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.