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.
Blank workflow observation and exception log
- Candidate product, edition, deployment and permissions:
- Synthetic change and source revision:
- Step, expected behaviour and observed behaviour:
- Record/link IDs and manual reconciliation needed:
- Evidence reference or screenshot/report:
- Rejected proposal/history retained:
- Exception, affected boundary and owner:
- Disposition, recovery and next check:
- Run date and reviewer only after execution. Blank is unknown, not success.
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.
What should the propulsion-valve change demonstrate?
Follow the proposed closure-time change from the hazard review to its control requirement, mitigation, test case, result and applicable configuration. Preserve a rejected proposal and inspect which links require manual maintenance. That records the actual risk-to-evidence workflow; it does not score a vendor without completed evidence.
How do we assess the cost of a narrower replacement fairly?
List the PTC lifecycle functions the team genuinely needs and which would remain in other systems. Compare retaining Codebeamer with the new requirements tool plus those retained systems, exchange work and administration using dated terms. A smaller requirements interface may otherwise shift risk or product-line work into disconnected tools.