As John Cridland is well aware, the deadline for complaints over the speed with which the Smith Commission went about its work has passed.

The breakneck pace, in large part the result of Gordon Brown's intervention in the independence argument, made a lot of people uneasy. Nevertheless, what's done is done. For the most part, it has been done satisfactorily.

This is not quite what the CBI Director-General has in mind, however, when he tells IPPR North that the precedent of "devolution by deadline" is a concern. The timetable imposed on Lord Smith was the product of political circumstances. There is no need to repeat the experiment, and no sense in making the attempt, as the constitutional remodelling of the United Kingdom proceeds.

If the ambition is a form of federalism, anomalies and unintended consequences are to be avoided at all costs. As Mr Cridland observes, the businesses represented by the CBI want certainty. They want to see reform conducted in a "careful, considered and transparent manner". Improvised, piecemeal changes to placate this or that local lobby will only create problems for the future.

In an ideal system of devolution, two conditions are satisfied. First, power is granted to the most appropriate level. Centralisation is abjured. Secondly, each of the levels connects in a coherent way. Reform cannot become a free-for-all in which the countries, regions and cities of the UK simply grab as much as they can. Nothing should be rushed, as Mr Cridland observes, and no decision should be arbitrary.

Naturally enough, he wants to avoid damage to the UK's internal market and enhance the prospects of his members. He also makes the point, perhaps relevant to Glasgow and its £1.3 billion City Deal, that the wrong sort of competition between regions is unhealthy. The problem sits at the heart of what Mr Cridland calls "the myriad growth deals, city deals and community budgets [that] have become a 'Tower of Babel' for business" in England.

The CBI represents business, of course. As such, it is calling for reforms that will enhance growth and economic competitiveness, encouraging jobs and investment. It sees the potential for devolution, but it also sees risks in ad hoc changes made for their own sake. Getting it right, as the Director-General puts it, is a prize that should not be squandered.

The economic case is not devolution's sole attraction, of course, but it helps to excuse still another layer of government. Ironically enough, however, clear thinking from central government is required if reform is to avoid the pitfalls Mr Cridland identifies. Glasgow and neighbouring councils will be handed half a billion pounds apiece, for one example, by Westminster and Holyrood. Where does that leave devolution in other parts of the country?

The question has not been addressed often, far less answered. One group of urban councils is blessed with a City Deal. What corresponding powers are to be devolved, in what manner, to those outside the golden circle? When does a fresh round of devolution impinge on existing devolution settlements?

Mr Cridland's is a note of caution, not of opposition. If the UK remains intact, federalism is its only rational choice. But there is nothing simple about such a project in these islands. The old saying holds true: haste is the enemy of speed.