Automation index
How much of a Materials engineer’s job can AI already do?
A tensile curve comes earlier. Picking the alloy so it does not fail in service do not.
This percentage does not predict how many people will lose their jobs.
Task comparison
IS WORK OVER?
Materials engineer
27%
AI can already do 27% of this job.
#164 / 643
View rankingMaterials engineer
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Tests, metallography and the spec.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 48% | +8.6 |
Shop, heat treatment and the part that fails spec.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Material choice, corrosion and fatigue.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 36% | +5.8 |
Supplier, certificates and the doubtful batch.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
The field failure and the root cause.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
That it does not fail, and not swapping the material blind.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 12% | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 27% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- materials tests
- metallography
- choose alloys
- corrosion
- fatigue
- heat treatment
- failure analysis
- batch certificates
Sources for this job· O*NET 17-2131.00· ESCO/ISCO 2149
IS WORK OVER?
Clinical research associate
27%
#172 / 643
View rankingClinical research associate
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Protocol, CRF and the monitoring visit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 48% | +8.6 |
Source, the gap and the one that does not fit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 40% | +6.4 |
Adverse event, the deadline and not delaying.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Consent, the signature and the one who did not understand.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
The sponsor, the audit and not dressing the figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
Audit, and not leaving a made-up figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 12% | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 27% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- CRF
- monitoring
- adverse events
- informed consent
- source data
- trial audits
- clinical protocols
- site visits
Sources for this job· O*NET 11-9121.00· ESCO/ISCO 2131