Will AI replace Project support officers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Project support officers (United Kingdom, SOC 3543), 52% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 57 out of 100 (range 52–63, 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 “Project support officers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders” (93/100, very high); “Estimate budgets and prepare capital expenditure requests for projects” (93/100, very high); “Update IT project schedules and allocate funding and staffing resources” (79/100, 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 “Project support officers” 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: “Negotiate with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials” (18/100, minimal); “Obtain final approval on project deliverables from the client” (18/100, minimal); “Monitor the performance of project team members, providing and documenting performance feedback” (28/100, 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 “Project support officers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 52% 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 Project support officers 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 27 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

Project support officers

carrying out monitoring and controlling activities to track the progress of the project, communicating project information through presentations and creating and managing documentation in collaboration with production staff. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: writing detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 52%
changing shape: 22%
staying human: 26%

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

Whole-job exposure score 57 out of 100 (52–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 27 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 project support officers 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.

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.

Your week, as this page understands it

Project support officers assist in the organisation, planning, monitoring and direction of a project and ensure it is adequately resourced and on schedule. The job title says “project support officers”. The real job is the part underneath: obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client. 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 project support officers is not one task. It is 27 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 52%
changing shape: 22%
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.

20 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

14 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.

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 95 · 3543/00
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.
Creating project timetables to ensure timely completion
This is reading one thing and writing another: project timetables in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 3543/00
Source: “Create project timetables to ensure timely completion.” (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: Building a project programme from tasks, durations and dependencies is scheduling software already 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 3/4.
Monitoring project milestones and deliverables
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 90 · 3543/00
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.
Writing detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Write detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders.” (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: Progress reports are written from information already recorded, which software does quickly and well.
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

6 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.

Communicating project objectives clearly to diverse audiences
The software now makes the first pass at project objectives, 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 · 3543/00
Source: “Communicate project objectives clearly to diverse audiences.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high 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: Briefings and updates are easy to draft, but reading the room and adjusting live still 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.
Identifying and managing risks associated with the work
The software now makes the first pass at risks, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Identify and manage risks associated with the work.” (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: Risk registers can be drafted and tracked by software, but deciding what to do about a risk stays with the team.
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.
Contributing to business cases and supporting the management of contractors as part of implementing agreed policies
The software now makes the first pass at business cases, 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 · 3543/00
Source: “Contribute to business cases and support the management of contractors as part of implementing agreed policies.” (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: Business-case writing drafts well; steering contractors day to day depends on relationships and judgement about 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.

Staying human

7 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 · 3543/00
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.
Communicating with client organisation staff at all levels to gather project requirements
The value here is that a specific person handles client organisation staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 3543/00
Source: “Communicate with client organisation staff at all levels to gather project requirements.” (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: Requirements are drawn out in conversation with people who often cannot yet say precisely what they need.
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 with teams to facilitate effective project management
The value here is that a specific person handles teams and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 3543/00
Source: “Coordinate with teams to facilitate effective project management.” (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: Coordination tools can carry much of this, but keeping teams aligned still runs on people talking.
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.

Show the other 17 tasks

Estimating budgets and preparing capital expenditure requests for projects
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 · 3543/00
Source: “Estimate budgets and prepare capital expenditure requests for 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: Building a budget and a capital request from cost data is standard spreadsheet and document work.
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 75 · 3543/00
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.
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 85 · 3543/00
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.
Reviewing work plans to schedule specific project activities
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: work plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 3543/00
Source: “Review work plans to schedule specific project activities.” (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: Reviewing plans and scheduling activities is planning work software can produce.
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 and measuring financial aspects of projects to enable effective cost forecasting
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: financial aspects of projects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 3543/00
Source: “Monitor and measure financial aspects of projects to enable effective cost forecasting.” (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: Cost forecasting from project financial data follows documented methods that software applies quickly and 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.
Monitoring construction project costs in support of commercial staff
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: construction project costs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 3543/00
Source: “Monitor construction project costs in support of commercial staff.” (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: Cost tracking runs on figures already in project and finance systems, which software monitors accurately 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 3/4.
Providing verbal or written project status reports to project teams
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: verbal in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Provide verbal or written project status reports to project teams, management, subcontractors, customers, or owners.” (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: 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 reports write themselves from project data, though difficult news still lands better in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating project information through presentations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Communicate project information through presentations.” (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: Slides and notes are easy for these tools to produce, but standing up and presenting is a person's job.
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.
Creating and managing documentation in collaboration with production staff
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Create and manage documentation in collaboration with production staff.” (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: Creating and version-controlling project documentation is well-structured work that software now handles to a good 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Requesting and reviewing project updates to ensure deadlines are met
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project updates in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 3543/00
Source: “Request and review project updates to ensure deadlines are met.” (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: Chasing updates and checking them against the plan is routine coordination software handles 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.
Identifying and reviewing resource needs with personnel
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at resource needs, 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 · 3543/00
Source: “Identify and review resource needs with personnel.” (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: Working out resource needs is planning work, though agreeing them happens in conversation with managers.
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.
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 80 · 3543/00
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.
Planning and coordinating meetings and events
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at meetings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 3543/00
Source: “Plan and coordinate meetings and events.” (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: Planning is desk work, but running an event on the day needs someone there.
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.
Assessing how stakeholders' interests are best
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles how stakeholders' interests are best and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 3543/00
Source: “Assess how stakeholders' interests are best managed.” (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: Working out how to handle competing interests depends on reading people and politics that are never 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 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 85 · 3543/00
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.
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 85 · 3543/00
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.
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 50 · 3543/00
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: £35,800a 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: 65,100in 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: detailed reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: writing detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders and carrying out monitoring and controlling activities to track the progress of the project. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what final approval runs 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: writing detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.

So, given all that: 52% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 26% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 27 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client, 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 detailed reports 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 detailed reports, 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 writing detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders” 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 obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client 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 project support officers (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 26% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 52/48: 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: “communicate with client organisation staff at all levels to gather project requirements”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 26% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 26% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
IT project managers
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 19% 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 19% 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 →
Quantity surveyors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor construction project costs in support of commercial staff, and their equivalent is to monitor and manage costs throughout a construction project. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 52% of its task weight, across 27 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: obtaining final approval on project deliverables from the client 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 Data Scientists 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 Data Scientists, Mathematical Science Occupations, All Other, Social Science Research Assistants and Statistical Assistants. 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

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 guided route for this

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

Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers is built for coordinators, administrators, team leads and project owners who live in Outlook, Teams, meetings, files and task lists (the people this page is about). It works on the part of your job that is growing rather than shrinking: keeping tasks, actions and status in one place, so your time goes on chasing the right things rather than assembling the pack.

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 project support officers 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 Project support officers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Project support officers (United Kingdom, SOC 3543), 52% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 57 out of 100 (range 52–63, 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 “Project support officers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write detailed reports on project progress for stakeholders” (93/100, very high); “Estimate budgets and prepare capital expenditure requests for projects” (93/100, very high); “Update IT project schedules and allocate funding and staffing resources” (79/100, 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 “Project support officers” 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: “Negotiate with project stakeholders to obtain resources or materials” (18/100, minimal); “Obtain final approval on project deliverables from the client” (18/100, minimal); “Monitor the performance of project team members, providing and documenting performance feedback” (28/100, 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 “Project support officers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 52% 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 Project support officers 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 27 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.
20 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.