What Should Survive From the Inquiry to the Proposal?

Imagine an advisor receives this request:

“We’re planning a week in Lisbon with my parents and our two children. My parents will leave two days before us. We’d like to stay together if possible. My father struggles with stairs, and we’d rather spend on a good location than large rooms.”

There’s enough here to start searching. A destination, a rough duration, a party and a few preferences.

But before we search, what should the next person working on this request understand?

This is a fictional example, but the work it asks of an advisor is familiar.

Start with what the traveler actually said

Six people are traveling, but they aren’t all staying for the same number of nights. The family wants to stay together, although “together” could mean one apartment, connecting rooms, or simply the same property.

The father struggles with stairs. That matters, but it doesn’t yet tell us whether a lift solves the problem. There may be steps at the entrance, a steep walk from the street, or a bedroom on another level.

And the family has already offered a useful tradeoff: they would accept smaller rooms for a better location.

That last point should help someone choose. Yet it’s easy to imagine the request becoming:

“Lisbon. Six guests. Seven nights. Family accommodation. Lift. Central location.”

It looks organized. It also leaves quite a lot behind.

A brief should help someone make the next decision

For most of my career, I’ve worked on the commerce side of travel. Once we have the destination, dates, occupancy and budget, we know how to start looking.

What I’ve been spending more time on while building Intentra is what needs to accompany those fields.

In this example, I would want the brief to keep four things visible.

What we know

There are six travelers initially, with four remaining for the final two nights. The party includes two children. One traveler has difficulty with stairs. The family would prefer to stay together and is willing to trade room size for location.

Exact dates, the children’s ages and the budget still need confirming.

What matters, and why

Location matters enough for the family to give up space. We still need to understand what a good location means to them: walking to restaurants, easy transport, proximity to particular places, or something else.

Staying together matters too. But we haven’t established whether sharing one living space is essential or whether being in the same property would be enough.

What we must not assume

“Struggles with stairs” should not quietly become “a property with a lift is suitable.”

“Stay together” should not automatically become “one large apartment.”

And the parents’ earlier departure should not disappear into a single seven-night stay for six people.

What needs a question

What can the father comfortably manage? What does the family want to be close to? Would separate rooms in the same property work? Would they consider changing accommodation after the parents leave, or would that disrupt the trip?

These questions affect which options are worth considering. They aren’t simply details to fill in later.

Then change one thing

Suppose the advisor finds a property that appears to fit, but it is unavailable for the first night.

An alternative has larger rooms and a lower price. It is farther from the places the family wants to visit.

Without the original reasoning, that could look like an improvement.

With it, the advisor knows there is a question to resolve. The family explicitly placed location ahead of room size. The alternative may still work, but the extra space does not, by itself, make it a better fit.

Or suppose the family decides they could arrive a day later.

That changes the dates. It doesn’t erase the accessibility concern, the different departure dates, or the preference to spend on location.

The brief needs to carry those decisions forward so the advisor can concentrate on what has actually changed.

Could another advisor pick it up?

That’s a useful test.

If this request moves to a colleague, a supplier or another system, can they see what the traveler confirmed? Can they distinguish a requirement from a preference? Can they tell which interpretation still needs checking?

And can they understand why one otherwise reasonable option might be wrong for this family?

An advisor will still need property knowledge, supplier information and judgment. A brief cannot replace any of that. But it can give the next person a better starting point.

This is part of what we’re exploring at Intentra: how to keep the meaning of a request useful as it moves through the work.

The information may already be there—in a conversation, an email or an inquiry. The challenge is carrying enough of it forward to support the next decision.

When someone else picks up a trip you’ve been working on, what do you most need them to understand?