Perforce · ALM migration
Helix ALM to Codebeamer
Unify requirements, tests, issues, folders, links, and workflow history in a modern Codebeamer operating model.
Complexity
Structured
Primary domain
ALM
Planning baseline · Reviewed July 2026
01 / Context
Start before the first export.
Helix ALM commonly separates requirements, test cases, test runs, and issues while linking them across the lifecycle. The target design should retain that coverage and evidence while simplifying legacy folders, fields, and state machines.
02 / Scope
What can move?
Migration scope should be decided by business value and evidence obligations—not by what is easiest to export. The following entities are typical starting points for Helix ALM.
Projects
Requirements
Issues
Test cases
Test runs
Folders
Links
Attachments
03 / Mapping
Source concept → target intent.
The target should express how teams will work in Codebeamer. These are common design patterns, not guaranteed one-to-one conversions. The final decisions belong in a version-controlled mapping specification and must be validated against the source version, available APIs, and agreed target configuration.
| Helix ALM | Possible Codebeamer pattern | Design note |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement document | Tracker + document view | Maintain order and requirement hierarchy. |
| Issue | Defect / work item tracker | Map types, states, ownership, and severity. |
| Test case | Test case tracker item | Preserve steps, parameters, and requirement links. |
| Test run | Test run / execution record | Select evidence based on retention needs. |
| Link | Association | Validate coverage across requirement, test, and issue domains. |
04 / Failure modes
What can break.
Test evidence volume
Historical runs can dominate volume while providing little ongoing value.
Cross-domain identities
Requirements, tests, and issues may use separate numbering and link conventions.
Workflow carryover
Legacy state machines often contain inactive transitions and obsolete governance.
05 / Plan
Five steps to cutover.
Define retention tiers
Separate active operational data, audit evidence, searchable archive, and disposable history.
Design the lifecycle model
Create target trackers and associations for requirements, tests, runs, and issues.
Map fields and identities
Preserve source keys, normalize users and values, and define deterministic transforms.
Pilot end-to-end coverage
Migrate a requirement through linked tests, executions, and defects to prove traceability.
Scale in controlled batches
Load, reconcile, review exceptions, and repeat using the same governed pipeline.
06 / Validation
Validate meaning, not only counts.
A defensible validation pack combines automated reconciliation with human review. It should show what moved, what changed by design, what failed, who accepted each exception, and which source snapshot the target represents.
Structural
Counts, types, hierarchy, fields, attachments.
Relational
Links, direction, coverage, reuse, versions.
Operational
Workflows, permissions, reports, user acceptance.
When scripts stop scaling
Build a repeatable workflow.
When repeated rehearsals, large volumes, relationships, or evidence requirements make one-off scripts difficult to control, purpose-built tooling can help. Product scope still needs to be confirmed against the source system, version, data model, and target design.
Read the NANGA Migrator overview07 / FAQ
Early migration questions.
Do all historical test runs need to move?
Usually not. Keep runs required for active work, regulation, contracts, or audit; archive the remainder under an approved retention plan.
Can requirement-to-test coverage be preserved?
It often can be retained when source IDs are mapped persistently, both endpoints exist before links are created, and coverage is reconciled after migration.
Can Helix folders become Codebeamer folders?
Sometimes, but folders may also represent document order, ownership, or classification. Map the underlying intent to the correct target construct.
Continue your plan
Turn findings into decisions.
This guide clarifies the source side. Next, connect those findings to the target operating model and decide how the migration will be delivered.
Compare another source
IBM
IBM DOORS
Preserve formal modules, attributes, hierarchy, links, and the evidence behind decades of requirements work.
Open guideIBM
DOORS Next
Move components, modules, artifacts, links, and configuration-aware requirements into a clean Codebeamer structure.
Open guidePTC
PTC RV&S
Translate item types, documents, relationships, workflows, and project structures while retaining the operational context teams still need.
Open guideOptional expert support
Strategic Migration Consultation
Use one representative Helix ALM project to test scope, target architecture, mapping risks, validation, and cutover assumptions before committing to full delivery.
Consultation delivered by NANGA SYSTEMS
A useful first conversation clarifies
Scope and risk
Clarify the source landscape, representative scope, and the uncertainties that need evidence.
Target decisions
Identify the Codebeamer structure, mapping choices, and operating-model questions to resolve.
Evidence and next step
Define how results will be validated and what the most useful first migration wave should prove.