When you shouldn't hire Chiarelli Labs (and what to do instead)

Most technology companies say they're the right choice for any situation. We don't do that.

There are scenarios where hiring Chiarelli Labs is the wrong decision. Identifying those scenarios early saves time on both sides and, most importantly, avoids a project that will frustrate everyone.

This post goes straight to the point: the cases where you should take a different path, and what that path is.

You still don't know what you need

If the request starts with "I don't really know what I want, but I know I need technology," it's not yet time to hire a software house. Delivering code for a poorly defined problem guarantees rework.

What to do: do an internal exercise first. Map the current process, identify where the real bottleneck is, put into words what success would look like for the project. Only then involve third parties.

If you want help structuring that diagnosis before signing any contract, our discovery week exists for exactly that.

Budget is below $1,500

Projects below $1,500 fall outside Chiarelli Labs' scope of work. It's not arrogance: it's honesty about what it's possible to do well within a budget.

What to do: for simple automations, Zapier or Make solve the problem for a fraction of the cost. For a website or landing page, platforms like Webflow or Framer deliver professional results without custom code. For one-off technical tasks, a good freelancer can be the right path.

You need a dedicated team for months without defined scope

We work with projects that have a beginning, middle, and end. If what you need is someone available full-time for whatever comes up, the right model is a full-time hire or an outsourcing contract with a staffing agency.

What to do: IT consultancies and outsourcing firms offer exactly this model. Hiring in-house devs also works if you have technical management capacity.

The problem is solvable with a well-built spreadsheet

Not irony. Spreadsheets solve a lot of things that seem to "need a system." If the transaction volume fits in a spreadsheet and there's no simultaneous collaboration problem or data loss risk, the cost-benefit of a custom system doesn't justify itself right now.

What to do: invest time in structuring the spreadsheet well. If in 6 months the volume grows or the limitation appears, come back to the conversation about a system.

You don't have decision-making power in the project

Projects where the contact person doesn't have autonomy to approve scope, release system access, or make technical decisions stall halfway through. Meeting after meeting with new people who contradict what was previously decided is the pattern that turns a 6-week project into a 6-month one.

What to do: map out who the real decision-makers are before starting. Projects that move well have a clear owner on the client side, with autonomy to decide.

You need AI to work perfectly with zero margin for error

AI systems in production have a margin of error. This isn't a defect: it's a characteristic of how language models work. If the context demands 100% accuracy (medical reports, automated legal decisions, financial transactions without human review), the current state of technology doesn't allow that without supervision.

What to do: projects that combine AI with human review at critical points are viable and deliver real results. If human review is unacceptable, the project needs to be redesigned before involving any technology.

What does make sense

If none of the scenarios above apply, we have good chances of working well together. Our post on alternatives can help confirm that Chiarelli Labs is the right choice for your case.

When it makes sense, get in touch.