Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming organizational practices but presents challenges when teams, individuals, and organizations hold differing perceptions of the technology and its implementation. This complexity intensifies in multi-organizational collaborations. While technological framing theory (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994) has extensively explored how technological frame incongruences affect technology deployment, little attention is given to understanding how congruent technological frames are maintained throughout technology trials. This gap assumes congruent technological frames ensure simple, uncomplicated and successful technology trials, overlooking the work necessary to maintain congruency. My study addresses the question: How do organizations in a multi-organization trial maintain technological frame congruency? I explored this question during an ethnographic study of a 29-month trial of an AI mammography product in Vietnam. I examined the interplay of technological frames across three organizations: Trial Facilitator, Technology Provider, and Technology User. Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, technological frames were analysed through the domains of Nature of Technology, Technology Strategy, and Technology-In-Use. Findings reveal 13 episodes where technological frame congruency was maintained through two mechanisms: compromises and accommodations. I build theory to explain how these micro-level technological framing processes are deployed to navigate challenges, such as communication issues and resource allocation, and sustain trial momentum. I introduce a process model that explains how compromises and accommodations can be crafted during Individual Technological Framing Episodes demonstrating the necessary work to main technological frame congruency. The findings provide practical insights into managing collaborative technology trials, highlighting the role of purposeful actions in maintaining congruent frames for implementation success.
