US dataswitch to UK
Computer Hardware Engineers
updating knowledge and skills to keep up with rapid advancements in computer technology, directing technicians and providing technical support. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: writing detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. Moving toward the second half is a real, doable plan.
Your week, as this page understands it
Research, design, develop, or test computer or computer-related equipment for commercial, industrial, military, or scientific use. May supervise the manufacturing and installation of computer or computer-related equipment and components. The job title says “computer hardware engineers”. The real job is the part underneath: building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation. 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 computer hardware engineers is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 44%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 34%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 51 out of 100 (45–58 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 18 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 computer hardware engineers 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.
- 2 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
8 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.
Writing detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed functional specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction.” (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: Writing detailed functional specifications is document work software drafts to a standard engineers can edit.
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.
Selecting hardware and material, assuring compliance with specifications and product requirements
This is reading one thing and writing another: hardware in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select hardware and material, assuring compliance with specifications and product requirements.” (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: Choosing parts and materials against a specification is a documented comparison task 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Storing, retrieving and manipulating data for analysis of system capabilities and requirements
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Store, retrieve, and manipulate data for analysis of system capabilities and requirements.” (O*NET 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: Pulling and reshaping data to answer questions about a system suits software, though deciding what to examine needs judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical support
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical support in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide technical support to designers, marketing and sales departments, suppliers, engineers and other team members throughout the product development and implementation process.” (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: Answering technical questions from colleagues and suppliers is largely written support 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.
Changing shape
4 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.
Updating knowledge and skills to keep up with rapid advancements in computer technology
The software now makes the first pass at knowledge, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Update knowledge and skills to keep up with rapid advancements in computer technology.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Summaries of new technology are easy to generate, but the skill itself has to be built by the engineer.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Conferring with engineering staff and consulting specifications to evaluate interface between hardware and software and operational and performance requirements of overall system
The software now makes the first pass at engineering staff, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with engineering staff and consult specifications to evaluate interface between hardware and software and operational and performance requirements of overall system.” (O*NET 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: Specifications can be compared automatically, but working out hardware and software interface issues is a discussion between engineers.
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.
Providing training and supporting to system designers and users
The software now makes the first pass at system designers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide training and support to system designers and users.” (O*NET 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: Training material and support answers are largely written work software produces to a usable standard.
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.
Staying human
6 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.
Designing and developing computer hardware and supporting peripherals
The ratings behind this row put computer hardware well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design and develop computer hardware and support peripherals, including central processing units (CPUs), support logic, microprocessors, custom integrated circuits, and printers and disk drives.” (O*NET 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 rating behind it: Design tools help, but creating processors, custom circuits and peripherals still takes heavy expert engineering work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation
This work happens in the physical world: product prototypes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Build, test, and modify product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Simulation models are well suited to software; building and modifying physical prototypes is bench work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing and verifying hardware and supporting peripherals to ensure that they meet specifications and requirements
This work happens in the physical world: hardware, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Test and verify hardware and support peripherals to ensure that they meet specifications and requirements, by recording and analyzing test data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Analyzing test data is a strong fit for software, but the hardware has to be tested on a bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 8 tasks
Analyzing information to determine, recommend and plan layout, including type of computers and peripheral equipment modifications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Analyze information to determine, recommend, and plan layout, including type of computers and peripheral equipment modifications.” (O*NET 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: Planning equipment layout and modifications from stated requirements is analysis and documentation software 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.
Specifying power supply requirements and configuration
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: power supply requirements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Specify power supply requirements and configuration, drawing on system performance expectations and design specifications.” (O*NET 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: Calculating power supply requirements from performance and design specs is documented engineering arithmetic 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating factors, reporting formats required, cost constraints and need for security restrictions to determine hardware configuration
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: factors, reporting formats required, cost constraints in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate factors such as reporting formats required, cost constraints, and need for security restrictions to determine hardware configuration.” (O*NET 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: Weighing cost, reporting and security factors to settle a configuration is documented analysis software drafts strongly.
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.
Analyzing user needs and recommending appropriate hardware
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: user needs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze user needs and recommend appropriate hardware.” (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: Turning stated user needs into a hardware recommendation is analysis and write-up 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.
Recommending purchase of equipment to control dust
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at purchase of equipment, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Recommend purchase of equipment to control dust, temperature, and humidity in area of system installation.” (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: Recommending environmental control equipment uses published specifications, though the installation area must be assessed 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring functioning of equipment and making necessary modifications to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Monitor functioning of equipment and make necessary modifications to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Performance data can be watched remotely, but changing equipment to bring it into spec means working on it.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing technicians, engineering designers or other technical support personnel
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles technicians, engineering designers or other technical support personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct technicians, engineering designers or other technical support personnel as needed.” (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: Directing technicians and designers means being the person they answer to and can ask.
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.
Assembling and modifying existing pieces of equipment to meet special needs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: pieces of equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Assemble and modify existing pieces of equipment to meet special needs.” (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: Physically assembling and modifying equipment is hands-on work at the bench.
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
- $161,740a 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
- 76,660in 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: detailed functional specifications in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: writing detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction and selecting hardware and material. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where product prototypes get done. 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
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Writing detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction is going; building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation is not.
So, given all that: 44% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 34% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles building, testing and modifying product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. 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 computer hardware engineers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was software developers: only about 13% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 15.9% less. Your own job splits about 44/56: 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 “update knowledge and skills to keep up with rapid advancements in computer…”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Software Developers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct technicians, engineering designers or other technical support personnel as needed, and their equivalent is to supervise and assign work to programmers, designers, technologists, technicians, or other engineering or…. Across both published task lists that is about 13% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 13% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 60% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $135,980 against your $161,740, 15.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Computer User Support Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already test and verify hardware and support peripherals to ensure that they meet specifications…, and their equivalent is to install and perform minor repairs to hardware, software, or peripheral equipment, following design…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $61,860 against your $161,740, 61.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Computer and Information Systems Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide training and support to system designers and users, and their equivalent is to provide users with technical support for computer problems. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% 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: 44% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
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 writing detailed functional specifications that document the hardware development process and support hardware introduction, 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Security system installers and repairers 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 Security system installers and repairers, Electronics engineers (professional) and Aerospace engineers. 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 computer hardware engineers, 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 44% 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 computer hardware engineers. 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 computer hardware engineers 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 Computer Hardware Engineers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Computer Hardware Engineers (United States, SOC 17-2061), 44% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 51 out of 100 (range 45–58, 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 “Computer Hardware Engineers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Analyze information to determine, recommend, and plan layout, including type of computers and peripheral equipment modifications” (75/100, high); “Select hardware and material, assuring compliance with specifications and product requirements” (75/100, high); “Store, retrieve, and manipulate data for analysis of system capabilities and requirements” (75/100, 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 “Computer Hardware Engineers” stay human?
- About 34% 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: “Assemble and modify existing pieces of equipment to meet special needs” (0/100, minimal); “Direct technicians, engineering designers or other technical support personnel as needed” (26/100, low); “Build, test, and modify product prototypes, using working models or theoretical models constructed with computer simulation” (29/100, 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 “Computer Hardware Engineers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 44% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 34% 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 Computer Hardware Engineers 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 18 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.
- 2 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.