Codebeamer earns its place when PTC lifecycle breadth is intentional. It covers more than a requirements repository, so a replacement search should begin by deciding which lifecycle responsibilities must stay together. An aerospace programme buying mainly requirement traceability and verification can compare narrower options; a company standardising risk, testing and product-line work across PTC may prefer to keep Codebeamer. This is Arc's source-based judgement.
Which workflows are we buying?
PTC presents Codebeamer as an ALM platform. List the workflows that are genuinely in scope: requirements authoring, hazard and risk work, tests, variants, software delivery and links to the product lifecycle estate. Mark existing integrations and qualified reports as constraints. Otherwise a “simpler alternative” may quietly move work back to spreadsheets or disconnected tools.
Which alternative fits that scope?
- Arc: focused, connected programme context for a space team, including review and verification.
- Polarion: broad ALM where Siemens alignment is strategic.
- Jama Connect: formal requirements reviews and test-oriented traceability.
- Visure: configurable requirements process where its assurance workflow fits.
Can we trace a risk to a test?
For a synthetic propulsion valve requirement, change the commanded closure time after a hazard review. Ask each vendor to show the affected control requirement, hazard mitigation, test case, result and configuration. Count how many records need hand-maintained links and how a rejected proposal is retained. The point is to test the workflow, not claim measured superiority from the scenario.
How do exchange and variants work?
Codebeamer documents ReqIF export, but scope and filters matter: an exported slice may not carry every view, hierarchy or external link as a receiving team expects. Trial the exact supplier exchange and variant baseline. If a contract or internal process depends on that package, the alternative must prove equivalence for the specific deliverable.
Where does Arc fit?
Arc's connected programme model and reviewable changes are relevant if the team wants systems-engineering decisions and evidence without a wider ALM transformation. Arc does not claim to replace every PTC lifecycle function. Compare the cost of retaining Codebeamer against the new tool plus the systems that would remain alongside it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Codebeamer too broad for every aerospace team?
No. Breadth is useful where risk, testing, product lines and PTC lifecycle continuity are part of one deliberate operating model.
Can ReqIF alone prove migration completeness?
No. Reconcile selected trackers, fields, links, attachments, baselines and any records outside the exchange scope.
What should an Arc pilot prove?
It should show the actual requirement-to-risk-to-verification workflow and the proposed change review, while identifying PTC functions that remain external.
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.