"OK, so 'it's all about the people,' you say," writes Bill. "But don't your criteria include the investors and professional advisors, too?"
Great comment. Of course they do.
The entrepreneur certainly has to ask whether she can co-exist with the people that are potentially investing in or advising the company, as a first step.
Then, she needs to structure a way to use their experience to learn and grow more rapidly than would be possible without it. To do that, it's necessary to test the advice against the market and make sure that it is consistently accurate. This will build the entrepreneur's confidence in the advice-provider which makes the ensuing cycle faster and more valuable.
Next, as the business grows out of the advisor's experience, it's time to move on. I didn't do this very well; I kept adding people. In the end, we had a football team, and the quality of the advice declined to nothing. Terms are a great idea as a way to start a discussion about whether to re-up or not each year. (Of course, this is not a compensation issue; whatever equity deal she makes with each board member should outlast their tenure.)
Have an independent view of the role of each advisor. Measure that view against the benchmark of what you can find about these roles in other enterprises. If someone is not a good fit, talk to them and then make the change.
I've seen a great team of two business savvy advisors click with an entrepreneur and advance the company's learning curve by years as well as a law firm gut a company by demanding payment from an angel round of investment for two years of past work and mis-represent their intentions in the deal documents.
Not all advisors are good ones but the good ones are great for the venture.