Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Technicians and associate professionals · code 3119

Physical and engineering science technicians not elsewhere classified

AI can crunch the test data. Testing the robot arm is still hands-on.

Collecting technical data and helping test robotics kit are mostly out of AI's reach. Building and testing pollution-control devices it barely touches.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

This unit group covers physical and engineering science technicians not classified elsewhere in Minor Group 311: Physical and Engineering Science Technicians. For instance, the unit group includes those who assist scientists and engineers engaged in developing procedures or conducting research on safety, biomedical, environmental or industrial and production engineering. In such cases tasks would include - (a) collecting data and providing technical assistance regarding: efficient, safe and economic utilization of personnel, material and equipment; methods of work and sequence of operations and supervision of their implementation; and efficient layout of plant or establishment; (b) aiding in the identification of potential hazards and introducing safety procedures and devices; (c) modifying and testing equipment and devices used in the prevention, control and remediation of environmental pollution, in site remediation and land reclamation; (d) assisting in the development of environmental pollution remediation devices under the direction of an engineer; (e) assisting engineers in testing and designing robotics equipment. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Engineering technician (production) - Fire investigator - Forensic science technician - Quantity surveying technician - Robotics technician - Time and motion study technician Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Production engineer - 2141 - Time and motion study engineer - 2141 - Quantity surveyor - 2149 - Aeronautics engineering technician - 3115

  • pipeline compliance coordinator
  • quality engineering technician
  • process engineering technician
  • leather goods product developer
  • automation engineering technician
  • textile process controller
  • aviation safety officer
  • product development engineering technician
  • footwear product developer
  • footwear production technician
  • food technician
  • airport maintenance technician
  • industrial engineering technician
  • commissioning technician
  • utilities inspector
  • leather goods manufacturing technician
  • photonics engineering technician

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

74 / 100

Mostly holds up against AI

AI can take a few chores off your plate, but most of the day is still yours.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Not Exposed

202 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 5 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 25.6 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 25.6 = 74.4.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Pinch of salt: this number is probably too rosy

It only asks what AI software could do, and this job is 53 out of 100 hands-on. A chatbot can't do that part. A robot might, one day, and nobody measures how close that is.

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Physical and engineering science technicians not elsewhere classified 74

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Collecting and analysing technical data.
  • Safety documentation.
  • Simulation before physical testing.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Building and testing equipment.
  • Troubleshooting prototypes.
  • Working safely with machinery.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Robotics and automation testing.
  • Environmental remediation technology.
  • Digital twins of equipment.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Medium

39 could do without you

It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 69 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Some

53 how hands-on

A fair part of this job is hands-on, so robots would be needed for that part, not just software.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less fine handwork and fewer cramped spaces than a typical hands-on job. That clears one hurdle for machines. It doesn't mean machines are doing this work yet.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 39 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

53 How
hands-on
39 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Hands-on, less fiddly work

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 15 US jobs , so treat it as rough.

finger skill 39.7 · hand skill 36.6 · cramped spaces 39.1 · averaged · rule: hands-on 50+ · fiddly under 39.4

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 32, against an average of 26. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 32

    Collecting data and providing technical assistance regarding: efficient, safe and economic utilization of personnel, material and equipment; methods of work and sequence of operations and supervision of their implementation; and efficient layout of plant or establishment

    Low
  2. 28

    Assisting engineers in testing and designing robotics equipment.

    Low
  3. 26

    Aiding in the identification of potential hazards and introducing safety procedures and devices

    Low
  4. 24

    Modifying and testing equipment and devices used in the prevention, control, and remediation of environmental pollution, site remediation and land reclamation

    Very Low
  5. 19

    Assisting in the development of environmental pollution remediation devices under the direction of an engineer

    Very Low

5 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
69
AI does it for you
39

Sidekick wins, by 30 points.

How good a match is this?

4 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 3114, 3121, 3129, 3999

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

67
33

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 1% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 12 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should engineering technicians be worried?

Short answer: not much. Some of the chores will change, and good riddance.

Parts of it are changing. Collecting data, testing robotics and identifying hazards are the most exposed tasks, all Low; modifying and testing equipment rate Very Low. Analysis tools speed up the data work; building and testing stay practical.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 82 jobs in the “Technicians and associate professionals” family, averaging 65. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →