What needs improvement with Pega BPM?

There are no job opportunities for users who have expertise in Pega. They are learning the certification program but need work. Pega should work on redefining their model and creating a demand for their skills. They need to reach a large number of business organizations.

I believe that Pega's strategy when it comes to the UX part is not that great currently as compared to the other emerging BPM tools in the market. I look forward to seeing the UX part of the solution improved in a much better manner.

Pega BPM's documentation should be improved, especially for freshers or new trainees. Pega BPM's pricing could be improved because it is expensive. People are not choosing Pega BPM because of its price and are moving to open-source or cost-effective solutions like Camunda.

The solution is expensive and it put many of our customers off. After a while, the company was no longer prepared to work directly with customers which created problems.

Pega BPM can improve product management, case management, omnichannel, CDH, and the customer data hub. All the major domains can improve. Additionally, more AI functionality and proper integrations with Pega RPA would be helpful.

I think there is room for improvement in the low code/ no code environment that they're promoting now. That needs to be aligned a little bit more. I still feel that it is not that friendly for a person who has no experience with Pega to just go in and try to create something. It is a little bit difficult to comprehend, which can be a challenge for the developers who manage the solution because they will have a hard time getting people to use it. For example, if several business users start developing an application at the same time, bottlenecks can happen and the developer will have to go in and kill the conflict in the rules that they have created. That could be better streamlined, which means there is room for improvement there.

An area for improvement in Pega BPM is security. It's secure, but it still has a lot of vulnerabilities, though Pega takes care of security through upgrades and different patch versions released from time to time. Pega BPM is robust, but it still needs some improvement performance-wise.

If it could also be integrated with robotics, it could help with a lot of things, even if we don't have APIs, we could still talk to other applications. If it could invoke a bot, for example. It currently has OpenSpan, but OpenSpan is a different thing entirely, as you call it in robotics order. If the BPM and robotics could be integrated more easily, then I believe both could be used. It is not at all integrated. OpenSpan operates in a completely different manner, and Pega operates in a completely different manner. Part of it is called Pega robotics, but it has nothing in common, in my opinion.

Currently, there isn't any feature I want to be added in the next release of Pega BPM because Pega always adds new features that my team welcomes and looks forward to learning. One area for improvement in the solution is the long learning curve, but after that, you'll find Pega BPM easy to use.

Pega BPM could improve the UI, it is poorly designed to have a good UX experience.

The workflow automation can be slow, so there is room for improvement there.

The initial setup can take a while. You need to have the right people in place to handle it effectively. It can be pretty expensive and is better for larger enterprises.

I would like to see Pega BPM improve the user experience. The platform has a lot of restrictions.

Pega BPM could be improved by including token-based authentication and extending its integration options. In the next release, Pega should live up to their claim to be low-code/no-code and make their platform more simple and UI-based.

The solution could be more scalable. It has some DevOps limitations. The product could be more robust and faster compared to what they have right now.

A few things I would like them to improve include, first of all, that they don't have any open-source learning platform. To learn Pega, you need to be a partner. If someone just wants to learn Pega for the sake of learning, they won't be able to do so as they don't give access to that. I would like to have an integrated process mining capability inside Pega. It will be like an entire digital transformation thing then. You don't need two or three sources. Similar to Signavio. Signavio runs BPM, it does modeling, and it is having process mining as well. In Pega, we have modeling, we have RPA, and we have BPM, however, we don't have process mining right now.

This is a very expensive product and there is a lack of availability of the Pega skill sets, the resources.

Pega BPM could improve the artificial intelligence capabilities because they are always valuable and case management for all types of industries is important. Additionally, the reporting performance management capabilities could be better because you want to have insights into how your processes are working, such as Cloud protection. The whole range can be better. However, the platforms are improving every year, they are on the right track. In the next release of Pega BPM, they should add more ways to do the customer interaction fields in the portals.

One of the areas of this solution that could be improved would be to improve the low code features of the application itself. We would also like to use the same platform to build any application, even if it is not necessarily defined as a functionality needed by a BPM. The RPA tool within this solution needs further enhancement to compete with other RPA tools in the market. They are focusing more on the overall platform rather than working on the RPA. Document AI tools could be an added functionality, for example. Alternatively, customers will need to purchase another RPA tool to complement the whole solution if they have very advanced RPA needs across their business.

The licensing model of Pega BPM is tricky, especially for first-time customers, so it's something that they could improve. The technical support team for this solution could be faster in resolving tickets.

There was a lot of room for improvement on the RPA front because the product was still in its journey for more than one year. The product was still in its early stages of development. We spoke with the Pega team and provided our feedback. On the BPM front, I believe it is pretty standard and an industry leader. We have experienced a few technical challenges, particularly triggering the workflow through file drops and accessing files. Those difficulties are more of a cloud versus on-premises issue because everything was on the cloud, and they were unable to retrieve files from on-premises folders. As a result, we had to resort to workarounds. I believe they could work on more integration of their RPA and BPM so that it becomes seamless for anyone, and then it becomes easier for a human versus machine interaction using the same BPM. They said at the time that it's on their roadmap and should be coming soon if it hasn't already. But those are the things that, in my opinion, would make a better BPM, where it would function as an enterprise orchestration layer, collaborating with humans and bots in the same way and delivering the business process.

There are several areas for improvement with this product. The performance of the application is very slow, the UI needs improvement, and the architecture needs to be simplified. In addition, it's impossible to know what's going on behind the scenes of this solution, and there's no tech support or useful documentation, so I have been forced to do my own troubleshooting.

The local development approach is good in Pega, however, cost-wise, it's getting expensive. That needs to be addressed. With Camunda, containerization is the most helpful feature. It can containerize and it can have its own deployment process. Pega may be adding that feature in a future release, however, right now, that's lacking and needs to be addressed. I'd like to see Pega support microservices architecture, which it doesn't do right now.

The way the IDE works with the chatbox and the taxonomy imports could be a little smoother. There should be quicker approvals for CDH. It is a bureaucratic approval process to be able to get those particular licenses.

The previous versions had good training documents but the updated versions need to improve the documentation.

In regards to the integration, more APIs may be required. It needs more integration with other platforms.

They use something called a unique model-based architecture. During development, where the database and the UI, everything comes from one single piece of architecture. Due to that sometimes the enterprise architecture teams do not like it due to the fact that it forces them to use just one piece of architecture. If these could be more modularized, then it can be easily deployable in different kinds of scenarios in organizations, it would be much better. However, they are kind of tightly coupled and it's difficult to separate everything out. Still, I would say it is an improvement to consider for the future. Id they could decouple the various components so that it gives flexibility to enterprise architects to deploy what is most needed as part of their enterprise architecture strategy, rather than getting kind of, looking at the only way the product handles, it would be a stronger product. They are currently spending some time on improving the product with respect to machine learning, especially related to robotic automation. They probably could be a little more adept on that area would help. It's very difficult to change many things unless somebody puts in the time to figure everything out. However, Pega could learn from all the customer service calls they get and categorize them in order to do an automatic form-based or customer service based response. If they could set it up to everything automatically, then that would save a lot of time and headaches for companies and help them troubleshoot and work through issues faster.

It's called a local platform but on the other hand, it needs a lot of experience. It's not all that easy to click and plug and play. If you really want to use all the features out of this platform, you definitely need a lot of experience and a lot of training to get there. Because the platform offers a lot of different features, it's rather complex and makes it very valuable for many different use cases, but what I would improve is that you can't tell all the people that it's a local platform, which suggests that it's for everybody, even for those people that do not have any clue about IT. They are using a lot of functionalities that try to help those developers and usually they make good jobs, but there are some situations where this automation will cause a lot of stress and trouble. This is something that creates more work at the end than if you just started from scratch.

The reporting does not work well for us. If we have somebody working on a ticket or request, we are not able to track the end-to-end time. Also, the assignment is not happening correctly. Ideally, they should have panel management reporting. The end-user notifications need to be improved because there is a delay. It is not fully compatible with all versions of Internet Explorer, so sometimes, it does not work. There are technical glitches because of this.

There are some UX shortcomings within the solution. However, it's my understanding that they have addressed them and in the next three months they will come out with a new updated version. They will be moving away from HTML5.

I haven't been using the solution for that long, so I don't know if there are any features that are lacking. We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies. As our group is pretty small, we may need to look for a different solution that's more geared to smaller sized organizations.

From a technical point of view, it would be helpful to have some advanced analytics to help with configuration. We have a lot of unwanted features and it would be good to configure it more appropriately so that we are using just exactly what we need.

Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved.

In terms of areas that need to be improved, I would say the timeout. This is because sometimes when we are patching some data from the database, we are getting added as a timeout. I would like to build a solution for that or to improve that feature, because by doing so the process will be trimmed. Sometimes it gets stuck just due to taking so much time for the user in the back-end data from the database. I think all the other features are very good. Additionally, I'd like to select the availabilities. I'm using the earlier version now because it is on-premise implementation. If I go on the newer PGi for a couple of days, the latest version, then I will able to see what other additional features we need to have in the BPM tool.

The solution would benefit from more integration capabilities. There are some tools within the solution that are difficult to use.

Pega currently is trying to add chatbots to their systems, and it's still quite immature. This part definitely needs to be improved. The RPA also needs improvement. Pega has its own RPA, via an acquisition a couple of years ago. They bought OpenSpan and tried to rewrite it to Pega's platform. It still has some gaps. For example, they have no machine learning. If they want to be more mature in the market, they probably need to consider working on improving that.

The solution could use more plugins. The pricing model needs to be improved. Right now, it's too expensive.

In terms of improvement, we would see a benefit in Pega having better availability on the cloud side. Their presence on the cloud is not as strong as their competitors. Pega and the partners both have needs to enhance their cloud footprint compared to what it is now. There is room for improvement with RPA as well (Robotic Process Automation) to automatically take action for users.

What should be included is some UI features and maybe some integrations. This includes documentation on how the UI works. For example, some way for the Pega out of the box tools to support UGS. That would be very wise. My issue is that the UI is hard to see in some small details. You can't do fast work with it all the time. Sometimes a customer has some requirements that you go outside of this box. It gives you the Pegs UI tool which has some limitations about styling and customizing the UI. For some customers, it meets their requirements and for some, it doesn't. That's my view for organizational use. Maybe they could provide better technical support. When you are trying to do some minor attachments, you shouldn't be required to use the UI. However, you can just use the solutions that are already in there.

The unit testing needs to improve, as well as the user interface. In coming releases, I would like to see something in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML).