1. In order to obtain an understanding of the present state of research on competence in the entrepreneurial field literature databases have been investigated for terms like ‘competence’, ‘competency’, ‘ability’ etc. in connection with ‘management’, ‘entrepreneur’, ‘founder’ etc. Additionally prominent works of the entrepreneurial domain have been included in the search. In a second step the findings have been revised to extract those, which a) present discussions on the content of competence, which b) specifically refer to new ventures, which c) incorporate a sufficiently detailed explanation of the competence domains and which d) at least involve some theoretical or conceptual foundation. The condition of offering ‘a sufficiently detailed explanation’ was important, because the goal of this research step was to identify literature, which could support the development of a grid for structuring competence domains. Though different studies analyze elements of competence (e.g. Walter, A., et al., 2003; Schefczyk, M. and Gerpott, T.J., 2000, 67; Szyperski, N. and Nathusius, K., 1977, 38–41; Brüderl, J., et al., 1996, 121–131; Olson, P.D., 1985, 25; Davidsson, P. and Honig, B., 2003, S. 302; Snell, R., Lau, A., 1994), these studies do not primarily intend to conceptualize competence. They are reconsidered at a later stage to detail the understanding of the competence domains.
2. Driessen, M.R. and Zwart, P.S., 1999; Röpcke, J., 2002; Herron, L., 1994, 28.
3. Chandler, G.N. and Jansen, E., 1992, 225.
4. Chandler, G.N. and Jansen, E., 1992, 225–226. Chandler, G.N. and Hanks, S.H., 1994 use the entrepreneurial and managerial competence as moderating constructs to assess the effects organizational resources and the quality of the business opportunity have on venture performance.
5. Most competence contents in the constructs presented above are only roughly outlined: Partly, only one item operationalizations are applied to specify them. See e.g. Herron, L., 1994.