There is little doubt that instant messaging (IM) is the new email. Those who try to buck the trend may go down in history alongside the record company executive who famously said that he did not think that an emerging band known as the Beatles had any commercial potential.

As software suppliers and trade bodies attempt to iron out their differences and make this method of communication as interoperable as possible, IM's usability and attractiveness is growing by the day.

Recently Microsoft announced it will enable messages to move between its enterprise messaging system and public IM systems. Meanwhile e-business organisation Eema plans to release a best practice guide on how to get the most out of the medium. The reasons to use IM are increasing all the time.

But the biggest sign that the use of IM is set to rocket is the fact that many business users already find the technology indispensable.

It's widely accepted that the financial industry is one of the pioneers of the IT world, and sets the trends for other industries to follow. In this sector IM is now an essential business tool, particularly in the money markets where it has become the communication tool of choice, powering the rumour mill that dictates crucial changes in stock prices.

The truth is that none of this should come as a big surprise. It doesn't take a genius to realise that something that enables communication twice as fast and twice as efficiently is likely to seize email's crown as office communication tool extraordinaire.

If IT departments are to meet this hot technology head-on, they must act now, and formulate a cohesive strategy with the support of senior management. The first step is for firms to overhaul or modify their existing security policies to ensure that they cover IM.

On a legal front, it's worth remembering that the potential for libelling individuals and causing untold corporate embarrassment is likely to be multiplied many times because of the instant nature of the medium. So it's worth explaining the dangers to employees and ensuring that they understand why they must follow the same stringent guidelines that should already be in place for email use.

With the growing burden of laws on corporate risk management, it should also be pointed out where it is and is not permissible to use IM for business tasks. At the same time, businesses' archiving policies should be updated to ensure that they cover the use of IM. Rules for monitoring also need to be re-examined, because IM could be harder to police than the more static medium of email. Regulated US firms are now required to audit IM communications, which is likely to be a sign of things to come in the UK. From a technical perspective, firms should work out whether they will allow the use of public systems or limit IM usage to a dedicated corporate system.

Now is the time to identify which public systems are safest and which present the least difficulties for interoperability, particularly considering supply chain partners and customers.

It is no longer good enough to dismiss IM as the plaything of the technologically over-developed for swapping information about The Crystal Maze and Dungeons & Dragons. IM is coming to a business near you sooner than you think.