I think it's invaluable to be able to compare training progress and process especially with similar entities. There's are a lot of dynamics at play which contribute to why something works in one situation and not in another. "Works" meaning the training makes a measurable difference in relation to the intended outcome. For example, if the intended outcome of a training program is to help produce hardy, more dynamic athletes how would I know if training contributed to this outcome? Perhaps, by mid-season, my athletes are besieged by injuries, have a losing record, and are disinterested, but set a hellofa lot of PRs in the weight-room, was the strength and conditioning effort fruitful? It depends on whose eyes you look through.
Rather, on a continuous basis it's imperative to be able to make comparisons. Maybe those comparisons start by examining what others are doing, fine. However, over time comparing change within the training entity is what really produces worthwhile data. In this regard, eventually comparison can take the shape of examining one cumulative variable, productivity during competition, during battle, or when needed most.
Is the athlete or group adaptable, healthy, hardy, and hungry compared to a time earlier when bodies and minds were better rested? Is the athlete or group on the upswing? Is cohesion evolving? Is the athlete or group able to grow through adversity? Now, these are the things I want to make some comparisons to. In this light, if training is not dynamic in nature, how can I tell anything more than the athlete punched his or her timecard in the weight-room today. I don't think that's the mindset of a champion.
How is your program hard-wired to look at itself? Do you have the guts or will to do this even if you potentially don't like what you find?