Experience Design and Management
Not included unless you switch them on: 328,800 postings from Fortune 500 career sites and 68,167 postings from small-employer job boards and 14,055 postings from US federal jobs, collected since 27 September 2026. The published figures stay on the panel they have always used.
How Experience Design and Management relates to the other programs
4,861 of the 277,185 postings in every geography in the last 90 days count toward Experience Design and Management (1.8%), the 9th largest of the 11 programs. 3,953 count toward it alone; 908 also count toward another program. 53.3% are AI-related, against 39.1% across all postings: the 3rd highest of the 11 programs with enough postings to say.
Experience Design and Management is the large circle. Each small circle overlaps it in proportion to how much of its work styles it shares with Experience Design and Management: the most alike program has 80% of its area inside, a program with half that similarity half as much, and one that shares nothing just touches. Around the ring, programs sit next to the ones they share most with. The number in each circle is the exact figure; every circle opens that program.
Most alike on work styles
- Marketing82% in common
Cooperation · Innovation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Independence
- Strategic Management78% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Innovation · Analytical Thinking · Independence
- Information Systems77% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Innovation · Independence
- Business Management75% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Innovation · Independence
- Global Supply Chain Management73% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Independence · Stress Tolerance
- Sales69% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Innovation · Analytical Thinking · Independence
- Accounting68% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Attention to Detail · Independence
- Human Resource Management67% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Innovation · Attention to Detail
- Finance66% in common
Cooperation · Initiative · Analytical Thinking · Innovation · Independence
- Entrepreneurial Management53% in common
Initiative · Cooperation · Analytical Thinking · Stress Tolerance · Innovation
“In common” is the share of the two programs’ work styles mixes that they hold together: for each item, the smaller of its two shares, summed, over the larger, summed. Items shown are the ones both programs ask for most, each held by at least 20 postings in both. Last 90 days, every geography. A posting counts toward a program when the discipline classifier assigns it there (how postings are classified).
Where Experience Design and Management postings fall across the four quadrants
Each bar counts Experience Design and Management postings in one quadrant, not the whole quadrant. The filled part is how many of those are AI-related. The last figure on each row turns it round: how much of that whole quadrant of the labour market Experience Design and Management postings make up. Last 90 days, by real posting date. Each quadrant’s name opens it on the overview, across every program.
- Business, AI-thinthe established business majors, unchanged3,980postings51.5%AI-relatedExperience Design and Management is 2.3% of all Business, AI-thin postings
- Business-deep AIan AI-in-business major657postings57.7%AI-relatedExperience Design and Management is 1.0% of all Business-deep AI postings
- Hybrid AIan information systems major, revised for AI76postingstoo few postings for an AI shareExperience Design and Management is 0.4% of all Hybrid AI postings
- Builder-deep AIa computer-science AI degree148postingstoo few postings for an AI shareExperience Design and Management is 0.7% of all Builder-deep AI postings
What the four quadrants are cut on. The capabilities a posting asks for, read from its description. A role naming three or more distinct engineering capabilities has builder depth; three or more business capabilities gives business depth. Both is Hybrid, neither is AI-thin. There are four because two yes-or-no tests cross, which is what makes them quadrants rather than a list. The threshold of three is the one the source analysis used, adopted rather than reinvented so the two stay comparable.
The 4,861 postings drawn here are this program’s share of the panel: postings carrying a real posting date from the last 90 days in every geography that the discipline classifier assigns to it. A posting can count toward more than one program. Quadrants with fewer than 20 postings are left out, and AI shares are withheld below 200.
What each quadrant asks for
Ranked by how far Business-deep AI sits from the other quadrants, not by how often the item appears. The bar is this region; the ticks are the others. An item everybody asks for tells you nothing about where you are.
Tools
Named software, languages and platforms. The fastest thing on this page to learn.
Partly definitional. Quadrants are cut on how many of these terms a posting names, so a quadrant leads on the terms that put it there. The ordering is still informative; the level is not a discovery.
- Jiraabout 8 in 100 postings ask for this7.8%+6.3 points vs the other quadrant
- Customer relationship management (CRM)about 8 in 100 postings ask for this8.4%+6.2 points vs the other quadrant
- Dashboardsabout 9 in 100 postings ask for this8.5%+5.4 points vs the other quadrant
- Databasesabout 6 in 100 postings ask for this5.8%+4.5 points vs the other quadrant
- Salesforceabout 4 in 100 postings ask for this4.0%+3.3 points vs the other quadrant
Shares are of postings in this region over the last 90 days, by real posting date, in the geography chosen above. These figures were fixed to the United States until 22 September 2026 and could not follow that choice; they can now.
Where these numbers come from
5,366 Experience Design and Management postings have been collected in all. The figures above use 4,861 of them: the last 90 days (4,851), and of those, the ones anywhere. Each bar is one source; 10 come from sources too small to draw.
- Remote job boardsboards listing remote roles3,724usedof 3,724 collected53.1%AI-related
- The Musea general job board, not chosen for AI642usedof 844 collected42.2%AI-related
- Employer career siteschosen because these employers post AI work485usedof 538 collected70.1%AI-related
- Hacker Newsmonthly hiring threads, mostly without a usable date or place0usedof 260 collected
The sources ask for AI at very different rates because they were collected for different reasons, so the 53.3% AI share at the top of the page is a mix of them and moves with that mix. Compare sources side by side rather than reading the pooled figure as the market’s. How each source is collected, and why they are never pooled for the market figures, is under the four sub-corpora on the research page.
What this page cannot tell you yet
No job titles from this program
The rules matching postings to this discipline were written without input from the people who know where these graduates go. Titles you supply become candidate rules, measured against the corpus before anything is published.
No employers from this program
None of the employers who actually hire your graduates have been named, so the panel can only describe firms that happen to post on the boards already collected. Named employers are resolved to their public job feed and collected directly.
Two things from you change all of the above. The job titles your graduates commonly take, and the employers who commonly hire them. Titles become candidate classifier rules; employers become collection targets, deduplicated across every program so the ones several of you name independently get resolved first.
Sign in to add them. Everything you enter is stored as a claim from your program, never merged into the posting evidence, and shown with your program named beside it.