The Problem with Pega...

In a seemingly innocuous note softly tucked away in a comparative discussion on Human-Centric Business Process Management Suites, analyst Connie Moore makes a this poignant and quietly thought provoking observation:

[most buyers consider Pegasystems a high-end business rules vendor with BPMS aspirations.8 In reality, Pegasystems - a successful company with 2004 revenues reaching $96.5 million — has completely morphed into a BPMS vendor that uses its business rules/process engine to tackle and simplify complex processes.

With SmartBPM Suite, the business rules engine (BRE) does more than codify and execute rules, which is how most other BPMS vendors use external BREs. SmartBPM Suite does that, but also uses business rules to empower rapid, iterative process design; to execute, monitor, and optimize dynamic processes; and automate processes in which changing conditions can drive each work item down a completely different path.

However, business rules can make the product overly complex. People sometimes conclude it’s nothing but a BRE because rules are used for everything - not just for business logic, but for processes, access control, data modeling, and system integration] - Connie Moore February 24, 2006 The Forrester Wave™: Human-Centric Business Process Management Suites, Q1 2006

(all emphasis mine)

On one hand Pegasystems does what is its purported to be (a BRE) much better than the other, and then delivers more than what the users think it can... however on the other hand, by handling all the tasks (access control, data modeling, system integration and the rest apart from business rules themselves) as rules.. causes users to dismiss it as
1. Either too complex or
2. Why do we need pega to do that?

a classic case of being too good for its own good? or a case of a misunderstood genius?