It is hypothesized that firms in high velocity, dynamic and fast changing environments should be more likely to develop good competitive knowledge and intelligence systems to help their decision makers make better informed decisions. However, this paper shows that while there is a correlation between the velocity of the environment and managers' needs for better competitive knowledge, there is almost no relation between the rate of change a firm faces and its competitive knowledge capability. This poses a significant problem for strategic planning because it suggests that managers, despite being aware of their relative competitive knowledge needs, are unlikely to actually have systematic access to the intelligence and knowledge they need to make good strategic decisions.

The last 25 years of strategic decision making theory has been dominated by two main streams of thinking—the Resource Based (RB) view, and the Industry Attractiveness (IA) view. Both these principal streams recognize the significance of competitive knowledge and intelligence. The literature has shown explicit support of the importance of competitive knowledge practices within the IA framework (Porter, 1980). From within the RB model, all proponents advocate implicitly the reliance on competitive knowledge.

From the IA stream, Porter is explicit as to the importance of competitive knowledge in competitor analysis (Porter, 1980, p. 48) which is made up of four components: future goals, current strategy, assumptions and capabilities. Together, these form the basis of a competitor response profile. Porter also raises the issues of the danger of blind spots and manager assumptions regarding competitors. This would become a key aspect of competitive intelligence and knowledge literature (Gilad, 1994). Porter specifically details the need for, and structure of, a competitor intelligence system (Porter, 1980, p. 71).

From the RB view, Prahalad and Hamel argue that corporate strategy should focus on the capabilities of the firm to develop core competencies that provide competitive advantage (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; and Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). Prahalad and Hamel implicitly rely on competitive knowledge for their contention to be valid. This implicit assumption can be inferred from the authors' emphasis on the importance of developing industry foresight. They contend that such foresight is based upon deep insights into knowledge external to the firm, such as industry trends in technology, regulations, demographics, etc. This foresight is a synthesis of many people's visions into corporate competitive knowledge.

An extension of the RB view is the Dynamic Capabilities View (DCV) pioneered by Teece et al. (1997). This considers dynamic capabilities as being the ability to deploy and redeploy a firm's resources in response to a changing environment. It is dynamic capabilities, rather than the resources themselves, that are a significant factor in achieving competitive advantage. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) progressed DCV to identify dynamic capabilities as being specific processes, such as product development, alliance building and strategic decision-making. One of the fundamental specific dynamic capabilities is the manipulation of knowledge. They contend that successful knowledge creation has explicit linkages between the firm and sources outside the firm (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000, p. 1109). This work draws a relationship between the managers' ability to analyze situations and the dynamic nature of their competitive environments. This ability in itself is a dynamic capability. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) imply the importance of competitive knowledge, as a dynamic capability, for configuring and reconfiguring resources within dynamic markets.

Knowledge Management Journal, Intelligence Systems, Decision Making, Dynamic Capabilities View, DCV, Management Decisions, Harvard Business School, Pearson Education Limited, Strategic Plans, Management Level, E-commerce, CKM Systems, Decision-making Process.