Small aerospace teams should buy for the work they can maintain with their current people. The tool must make requirements, interfaces and evidence reliable without turning one engineer into a full-time database administrator. A simple controlled workbook may be appropriate until the number of owners and changes makes reconciliation unsafe. This is Arc's source-based guidance, not an independent ranking.
This guide concerns a small team maintaining supplier obligations and evidence across builds or programmes. Its buying test is repeatable exchange and applicability as contributors change. For a first satellite project with no inherited tool estate, use the space-startup guide.
Which authority rules do we need?
Choose who owns the requirement set, who can approve a change, how a baseline is named and where verification evidence lives. NASA's requirements guidance supports disciplined management, but the team's contract sets the needed formality. A product cannot compensate for an unnamed owner or a requirement statement no one will maintain.
Which tools fit our constraints?
A workbook or document fits a single-owner, low-change list. Arc fits a small space programme that needs connected cross-discipline decisions and controlled parallel changes. Jama Connect fits teams with substantial formal review. DOORS, Polarion and Codebeamer can be appropriate when a customer or parent organisation already requires the estate. Avoid paying the administration cost of a broader system just to manage a narrow requirement list.
Can three people complete the review?
Use a synthetic UAV power-distribution requirement revised after a supplier component change. Have a systems engineer propose it, a hardware owner assess the interface and a verification owner find the affected test. Repeat without vendor assistance. Note where each person needs an administrator, makes a spreadsheet copy or loses the approved revision.
How will exchange and growth work?
Export a representative requirement package and check IDs, hierarchy and test references. Define how a new subcontractor will receive and return comments. If the team expects two programmes, test whether applicability stays clear without duplicating every record. Keep the cost of training a new hire in the scorecard.
Where does Arc fit?
Arc's programme model connects requirements, interfaces, risks and verification, while attributable reviews provide control as the team grows. Test the real exchange and deployment needs before selecting it. The lower-maintenance path is the one the team can keep accurate after the demo.
Frequently asked questions
Can a small aerospace team use a spreadsheet?
Yes for a stable, clearly owned set, provided changes and evidence can be reconciled for required reviews.
What should the selection exercise include?
Three actual roles completing one cross-discipline change without vendor assistance, followed by an export check.
When is a broader ALM suite justified?
When contractual dependencies or genuinely shared lifecycle work outweigh its administration and training costs.
Evaluate these programme criteria in Arc
Arc connects requirements, systems and interfaces, controls branch, review and merge, and links verification evidence to the relevant requirements and configurations. Evaluate one representative work package against this guide’s criteria.
Luc will email from luc@archelps.com to arrange setup. Agree scope and data handling before adding programme information.