US dataswitch to UK
Commercial and Industrial Designers
preparing sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, artwork or blueprints, developing industrial standards and regulatory guidelines and researching production specifications, costs. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: researching production specifications, costs, production materials and manufacturing methods and providing cost estimates and itemized production requirements. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Design and develop manufactured products, such as cars, home appliances, and children's toys. Combine artistic talent with research on product use, marketing, and materials to create the most functional and appealing product design. The job title says “commercial” or “industrial designers”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers, to establish and evaluate design concepts for manufactured products. 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 commercial and industrial designers is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers, to establish and evaluate design concepts for manufactured products, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 16%
- changing shape
- 31%
- staying human
- 53%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 38 out of 100 (32–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 17 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 commercial and industrial designers 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 2026-08-05. 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.
- 1 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
3 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Researching production specifications, costs, production materials and manufacturing methods and providing cost estimates and itemized production requirements
This is reading one thing and writing another: production specifications, costs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Research production specifications, costs, production materials, and manufacturing methods and provide cost estimates and itemized production requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling together specifications, materials and cost estimates is research and calculation done at a screen.
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 2/4.
Participating in new product planning or marketing research
This is reading one thing and writing another: new product in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Participate in new product planning or market research, including studying the potential need for new products.” (O*NET 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: Market research and new product planning are analysis tasks with plenty of data behind them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing graphic material for use as ornamentation
This is reading one thing and writing another: graphic material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design graphic material for use as ornamentation, illustration, or advertising on manufactured materials and packaging or containers.” (O*NET 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: Ornamental and packaging graphics are produced well by design software, with the designer choosing and refining.
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
5 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Preparing sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, artwork or blueprints
The software now makes the first pass at sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, artwork, or blueprints, using drafting instruments, paints and brushes, or computer-aided design equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design tools generate concept sketches quickly, but detailed production drawings still need a designer's hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating feasibility of design ideas
The software now makes the first pass at feasibility of design ideas, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate feasibility of design ideas, based on factors such as appearance, safety, function, serviceability, budget, production costs/methods, and market characteristics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Weighing looks, safety, cost and market fit can be drafted at a screen, though the judgment call remains the designer's.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Investigating product characteristics, the product's safety and handling qualities, its market appeal
The software now makes the first pass at product characteristics, the product's safety and handling qualities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Investigate product characteristics such as the product's safety and handling qualities, its market appeal, how efficiently it can be produced, and ways of distributing, using, and maintaining it.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching safety, appeal and production efficiency is largely desk research software can do a good first pass on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading publications, attend showings and studying competing products and designing styles and motifs to obtain perspective and generate design concepts
The software now makes the first pass at publications, attend showings and studying competing products, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Read publications, attend showings, and study competing products and design styles and motifs to obtain perspective and generate design concepts.” (O*NET 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: Scanning publications and competing products for ideas is exactly the kind of wide reading software does quickly.
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.
Staying human
9 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Modifying and refining designs, using working models, to conform with customer specifications, production limitations or changes in design trends
The ratings behind this row put designs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Modify and refine designs, using working models, to conform with customer specifications, production limitations, or changes in design trends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Refining a design against a customer's specification is partly document work, but it is judged against a physical model.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers
The value here is that a specific person handles engineering, marketing, production or sales departments and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with engineering, marketing, production, or sales departments, or with customers, to establish and evaluate design concepts for manufactured products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: Agreeing design direction with engineers, marketers and customers happens in conversation between colleagues.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting designs and reports to customers or designing committees for approval and discussing need for modification
The value here is that a specific person handles designs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Present designs and reports to customers or design committees for approval and discuss need for modification.” (O*NET 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: The deck can be produced automatically, but winning approval in the room depends on the designer presenting it.
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.
Show the other 7 tasks
Developing industrial standards and regulatory guidelines
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at industrial standards, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop industrial standards and regulatory guidelines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting standards and guidelines is document work, though the content has to be agreed with industry bodies.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising corporations on issues involving corporate image projects or problems
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles corporations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 2 · SupplementalSource: “Advise corporations on issues involving corporate image projects or problems.” (O*NET 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: Advice on corporate image can be drafted at a screen, but clients act on it because they trust the adviser.
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 look and function of product lines
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put the look well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Coordinate the look and function of product lines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping a product line consistent is judgment about how real objects look and work together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing manufacturing procedures and monitoring the manufacture of their designs in a factory to improve operations and product quality
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop manufacturing procedures and monitor the manufacture of their designs in a factory to improve operations and product quality.” (O*NET 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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Writing manufacturing procedures is document work, but monitoring the factory means being on the floor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing and coordinating the fabrication of models or samples and the drafting of working drawings and specification sheets from sketches
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the fabrication of models and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct and coordinate the fabrication of models or samples and the drafting of working drawings and specification sheets from sketches.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: Directing model makers and drafters is coordination work with the people doing it.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising assistants' work throughout the design process
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles assistants' work throughout the design process and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Supervise assistants' work throughout the design process.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 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: Supervising assistants is a day-to-day working relationship with particular people.
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.
Fabricating models or samples in paper
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: models, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Fabricate models or samples in paper, wood, glass, fabric, plastic, metal, or other materials, using hand or power tools.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Making a physical model in wood, metal or fabric is workshop work with tools in hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $83,910a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 33,490in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: production specifications, costs in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: researching production specifications, costs and participating in new product planning or marketing research. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what engineering, marketing, production or sales departments 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
Start with what does not change: conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 16% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 31% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 53% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Researching production specifications, costs, production materials and manufacturing methods and providing cost estimates and itemized production requirements is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to production specifications, costs, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether engineering, marketing, production or sales departments are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near preparing sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, artwork or blueprints. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to commercial and industrial designers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was interior designers: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 19.9% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 38/100 here, with only 16% of the task list in the top band, and “prepare sketches of ideas, detailed drawings, illustrations, artwork, or blueprints, using drafting…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US 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.
Interior Designers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already present designs and reports to customers or design committees for approval and discuss…, and their equivalent is to estimate material requirements and costs, and present design to client for approval. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $67,190 against your $83,910, 19.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Electrical Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already confer with engineering, marketing, production, or sales departments, or with customers, to establish…, and their equivalent is to confer with engineers, customers, or others to discuss existing or potential engineering projects…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Marketing Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already evaluate feasibility of design ideas, based on factors, and their equivalent is to identify, develop, or evaluate marketing strategy, based on knowledge of establishment objectives, market…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 16% of its task weight, across 17 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like conferring with engineering, marketing, production or sales departments or with customers arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Clothing, fashion and accessories designers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Clothing, fashion and accessories designers and Design occupations n.e.c.. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for commercial / industrial designers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 16% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for commercial / industrial designers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for commercial / industrial designers 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 Commercial and Industrial Designers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Commercial and Industrial Designers (United States, SOC 27-1021), 16% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 38 out of 100 (range 32–45, band: low). 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 “Commercial and Industrial Designers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Design graphic material for use as ornamentation, illustration, or advertising on manufactured materials and packaging or containers” (75/100, high); “Research production specifications, costs, production materials, and manufacturing methods and provide cost estimates and itemized production requirements” (68/100, high); “Participate in new product planning or market research, including studying the potential need for new products” (64/100, 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 “Commercial and Industrial Designers” stay human?
- About 53% 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: “Fabricate models or samples in paper, wood, glass, fabric, plastic, metal, or other materials, using hand or power tools” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise assistants' work throughout the design process” (13/100, minimal); “Confer with engineering, marketing, production, or sales departments, or with customers, to establish and evaluate design concepts for manufactured products” (17/100, 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 “Commercial and Industrial Designers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 16% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 53% 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 Commercial and Industrial Designers 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 17 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.