Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has laid out a compelling vision—fostering a unified “One Team” approach. It’s a refreshing direction for an organization that has navigated years of internal complexity and leadership transitions.

But beneath this renewed focus on collaboration lies an important structural question:

Does “One Team” truly represent One Enterprise, One Anatomy—or are we still seeing the reality of One Enterprise, 1900 Anatomies?

The Quiet Risk: 1900 Fragmented Interpretations

In large enterprises like Intel, terms like “unity” and “teamwork” often carry aspirational weight. But without a clearly defined and aligned enterprise structure—spanning strategy, execution, and operations—these noble intentions can quietly give way to fragmentation.

Every business unit, department, or team may end up operating with its own interpretation of goals, systems, processes, and decision logic.

What results is not a unified enterprise—but 1900 mini-enterprises operating under the same brand.

This isn’t a criticism of Intel—it’s a common challenge faced by most large, global organizations.

A Historical Analogy from Medicine

Consider the medical world in the early 1800s. Doctors believed each person had a unique human anatomy—one billion people, one billion different anatomies. Treatments were inconsistent, based on personal intuition, not shared understanding.