erman. "Then you have a path for viruses and malicious codes." Compatibility problems also plague instant messaging; a universal standard is still somewhere in the future. Presently, most instant messaging products can't display messages from competing systems. "[AOL IM] is a popular service in some departments, and MSN is popular in other departments," says Kalehoff. "The problem is they don't talk to one another." In addition to the security and compatibility traps of instant messaging, CIOs must also worry that the technology will eat into productivity. After all, repeatedly pausing to answer messages and swat nuisance IM pop-ups isn't a great way to focus. "You can specify that you're busy, but you have an extra step not to be disturbed," says Osterman. Employees are also likely to use the technology to chat with family and friends. "This is something that could be used as a time waster," says Osterman. Many businesses also deal with IM's legal implications. This is particularly true in the financial industry, where Securities and Exchange Commission reg- ulations require securities companies to record and log both instant messages and e-mails. Although most enterprise-grade instant messaging products, such as Sametime, provide archiving capabilities, many financial industry CIOs would simply prefer to skip the complex job of tracking individual instant mes- saging pop-ups. These CIOs have either banished instant messaging from their organization or limited its use to purely administrative functions. "We're not really communicating dollar figures or anything like that," says Robert Stabile, ON THE MENU-TELECOM SERVICES senior technology officer at investment company J.P. Morgan Partners in New York City. In fact, given the strong likelihood of technical and management headaches, CIOs at all sorts of organizations would simply like to exile instant messaging technology. Many already have. According to Osterman Research, 22 percent of companies block IM traffic from their network. APL, a 12,000-employee contain