It is clear, just from the article, that the museum, and the company it contracted its security to, could have done a number of things to improve the security in ways that would have no impact on the viewers' experience. Just to start with, there were major procedural errors that significantly delayed getting the alarm out. Then there was the inability to tell if individual items had been moved, and which ones... Raise the bar a bit, and it becomes highly unlikely that any group capable of pulling off a heist would be unaware that they could not sell the loot.
One lesson, imo, is the cost of outsourcing critical services, that are difficult to quantify, when comparing the cost of doing something in-house or not. Had the security guards been part of the team working at the museum (instead of a rotating team covering multiple clients), they would likely have absorbed knowledge and had an immediate reaction to the missing pieces.
The thieves were still moving around the streets with the paintings on a night without much traffic while the security guards were unsure whether a theft had occurred. Had the police begun canvassing the area immediately, they likely would have been caught or at least become suspects immediately. Instead of weeks later.
On the other hand, a small museum is unlikely to have the requisite expertise, and rolling your own security is not advised unless you are an expert. I would have thought the insurance companies might be more proactive in this area, but I also note that its exposure was much less than the current value of the art.
I agree. Also, having a security guard inside the building all night long would have deterred this group. You'd think the insurers would do some oversight on the security.
