The first aim in this study was to identify a competence structure from the research literature that could explain the relation between the concepts of the unforeseen and innovation. The second aim of the study was to sort this competence structure into specific competence types with their underlying competence units. The term "competence type" indicates a competence area at a higher level. The term "competence unit" indicates an underlying but more precise expression of competence. For example, a competence type could be collaboration, while underlying competence units, which actually constitute the competence type itself could be for instance coordination, clear communication and situational awareness.

We derived the following research three questions (RQs):
RQ1: What are the competence structures needed for innovative processes?
RQ2: Which competence types does this competence structure consist of?
RQ3: Which underlying competence units are included in a specific competence type?

Our method was a two-step process. First, we based our study on conducting a systematic literature review of the relation between the two concepts, the unforeseen and innovation. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and identified 3,768 abstracts. However, answering RQ1, the competence structure revealed through our PRISMA study did not lead to an identification of competence types and units. Our second step was therefore to use the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) Standards and Competence system in order to demystify this competence structure. Using the NVQ system, we then placed emphasis on competence types and competence units. Answering RQ2 and RQ3, our findings then revealed an overall competency structure consisting of 14 identified competence types and a total of 50 competence units. The 14 competence types were collaboration, creativity, divergent thinking, enculturation, entrepreneurial leadership, flexibility, imagination, improvisation, judgment and decision making, knowledge articulation, self-efficacy, serendipity, trialling and understanding emotions. We conclude that few of the studies we investigated through our PRISMA study specifically mentioned competence. We further conclude that the innovation literature in general does define what competence is or what it consists of. The innovation literature is occupied with describing the activities that contribute to successful innovation in an organization with little emphasis on how this competence should be developed. The main contribution of this paper is therefore how it draws upon theoretical concepts from the innovation field and then develops a better understanding of the competence structure, competence types and competence units needed for people and organisations to address innovative processes and unforeseen problems.

Keywords: Innovation, the unforeseen, competence structures, competence types, competence units.