The same question, different answers

Granularity per organizing unit, by design. The spread runs roughly twelvefold across the corpus. It tracks what each framework was authored to specify, not relative quality.

Workforce Pedagogy
NICE Framework v2
51.6
DCWF v5.1
39.8
ENISA ECSF
32.5
CSTA K-12 CS
10.2
SFIA 9
5.6
ACM/IEEE CSEC2017
5.0
Cyber.org K-12
4.3
DigComp 2.2
4.2
Elements per top-level organizing unit, with examples included. Bar widths are scaled to the highest value (NICE, 51.6).

NICE specifies tasks, knowledge statements, and skill statements per work role. DigComp specifies competence areas designed for citizen self-assessment. Different questions, different shapes.

See the full cross-framework analysis.

The frameworks at a glance

US Workforce NICE Framework v2 Units 41 · Elements 2,115 US Workforce DCWF v5.1 Units 74 · Elements 2,945 EU Workforce ENISA ECSF Units 12 · Elements 390 Global Workforce SFIA 9 Units 147 · Elements 830 US Pedagogy Cyber.org K-12 Units 116 · Elements 500 US Pedagogy CSTA K-12 CS Units 25 · Elements 254 Global Pedagogy ACM/IEEE CSEC2017 Units 8 · Elements 40 EU Pedagogy DigComp 2.2 Units 5 · Elements 21

What this is and isn’t

cybedtools is a comparison and querying layer over existing cybersecurity workforce and learning frameworks. When the package’s outputs disagree with a framework steward’s own view of their framework, the steward’s view is correct.

The package extends framework-based analysis. It gives researchers a uniform query surface across heterogeneous artefacts. It does not replace any framework, redistribute source text under more permissive terms than the framework’s own license, or rank frameworks against each other.

Back to top