Cherry-picking the Lourve: when reactive maintenance becomes a security risk!
On Sunday morning, thieves used a cherry picker to scale the façade of the Musée du Louvre and escape with priceless jewels. The speed of the theft shocked the public. In under seven minutes, the execution was reportedly complete. But was it really seven minutes? A cherry picker drives slower than most people can walk. The real question is not how fast the thieves moved, it’s how no one stopped them.
People often overlook the importance of maintenance culture, but it shapes far more than asset condition. It defines awareness, accountability, and control. When maintenance becomes reactive, fragmented, or under-resourced, the normal checks and rhythms that keep a site alert begin to erode. And that’s when control slips.
The problem with reactive maintenance
In early 2025, the Louvre’s director, Laurence des Cars, warned that parts of the building were deteriorating, with leaks, temperature fluctuations, and structural issues threatening artwork preservation (AP News, 2025). A major renovation programme, announced by President Macron in early 2025, is now underway with an estimated cost of €700 – €800 million and completion expected by 2031 (AP News, 2025; ArchDaily, 2025). The renovation announcement followed a note from des Cars to Culture Minister Rachida Dati, warning that the museum was threatened by “obsolescence.” According to the document, first reported by Le Parisien, she highlighted water leaks, temperature variations, and other issues “endangering the preservation of artworks.” The Louvre’s last large-scale renovation, which included the iconic glass pyramid and major gallery updates, was completed more than 35 years ago, in the late 1980s. That long interval means much of today’s maintenance activity addresses ageing infrastructure rather than routine upkeep.
When maintenance teams are continually firefighting urgent issues instead of following a planned schedule, the unusual begins to look normal. A cherry picker parked outside becomes just another contractor at work. Every emergency call-out and last-minute repair trains staff to expect unplanned activity, reducing scrutiny of who is on site, what they are doing, and whether they should be there at all.
When oversight becomes too simplified
Large institutions often rely on centralised maintenance systems to manage thousands of assets, work orders, and contractors. These systems are vital for coordination, but they can also create blind spots. When the process of raising, approving, or closing work orders becomes overly automated, physical site awareness can weaken.If a task appears on the system, it is often assumed to be legitimate, even if it hasn’t been verified in person. In heritage or high-security environments, that assumption is dangerous. Digital tools are designed to support vigilance, not replace it.
Every planned and reactive task should still be communicated through daily briefings and site-wide coordination. Only authorised contractors, in branded vehicles, during defined time windows, should be present. Access equipment such as cherry pickers should always require multiple permits and visible sign-off. Technology can help manage this process, but it cannot replace the judgment of people who know what “normal” looks like on site.
Where was the oversight?
In June 2025, the Louvre closed temporarily as staff staged a one-day strike, citing overcrowding, strained infrastructure, and untenable working conditions caused by rising visitor numbers (AP News, 2025). These protests reflected deeper operational fatigue, the kind that allows critical oversights to occur. Every maintenance zone and contractor presence on a live heritage site should be supervised. If an organisation must operate reactively, it must compensate with more people, not fewer. Each external contractor should be accompanied by an in-house staff member. Access equipment should trigger permit checks, and all works should be logged in the day’s briefings. These are not bureaucratic rituals; they are the foundations of situational awareness.
Instead, the sight of a cherry picker outside the museum was evidently unremarkable enough to pass unnoticed, a symptom of a system where reactive urgency has overtaken procedural control.
Where maintenance and security converge?
Security breaches rarely occur in isolation. They emerge in the spaces where maintenance, operations, and security stop communicating. In a highly reactive environment, those spaces multiply. If a team is constantly putting out fires such as leaks, failures, or emergencies, it inevitably bypasses some of the normal security procedures designed to protect a site. Access checks, permits, and contractor verifications are often skipped in the rush to restore systems. One or two emergency interventions might go unnoticed. But when these events become frequent, they start to feel routine, and awareness slips.
If staff see contractors, vehicles, or cherry pickers on site every few days to fix yet another issue, they stop questioning it. The extraordinary becomes ordinary. It no longer becomes something worth noting in daily briefings or listening out for during operational rundowns. When that happens, no one bats an eyelid when a cherry picker parks beside one of the most secure museums in the world. Maintenance and security share the same foundation: operational awareness. Both depend on accurate data, clear protocols, and consistent supervision. When those weaken, it is not only assets at risk but also continuity, reputation, and public trust.
The Louvre’s renewal programme is a vital step forward, but the theft signals that the transition from reactive to preventive maintenance must accelerate. Without long-term forecasting to anticipate system failures, façade deterioration, or visitor-capacity limits, risks escalate, leading to unplanned closures, damaged collections, reputational harm, and spiralling emergency costs.
Lessons in maintenance culture: A wake up call for asset owners
From a maintenance and capital-planning perspective, the Louvre’s case illustrates a simple truth: when you lose rhythm, you lose control.
Preventive maintenance is not only about asset life; it is about situational awareness. Once maintenance becomes reactive, both safety and security start to erode.
Key principles for complex or high-profile assets include:
Asset Register and History – Maintain full visibility of every component, its condition, and service record.
Work-Order Management and Vendor Coordination – Use one integrated system for planned and reactive work, with defined approvals.
Condition Monitoring and Alarm Management – Analyse early-warning data and trends.
Integration with Operations and Security – Align maintenance scheduling with visitor flow, event planning, and security control.
Renewal and Lifecycle Planning – Replace systems before they reach failure.
Minimising Disruption – Plan works to reduce conflict and ensure all site activity remains visible.
Data-Driven Decision-Making – Use historical cost and failure trends to prioritise investment.
Heritage and Compliance Constraints – Recognise the specialist time and approvals needed for protected fabric.
Environmental and Structural Risk Alignment – Integrate flood protection, humidity control, and conservation in maintenance planning.
Across all sectors, owners of large or complex assets face similar pressures: ageing infrastructure, constrained budgets, and high utilisation. The result is often a slide from preventive to reactive maintenance, and with it, a loss of procedural vigilance.
Preventive systems safeguard more than assets; they safeguard trust. They ensure that when a cherry picker appears beside a landmark, everyone knows who authorised it, what it is doing, and when it will leave. If no one asks those questions, the next incident will not simply be a theft — it will be proof of a system that stopped paying attention.
Closing Thought
At Tolu Consulting, our maintenance and capital advisory work focuses on precisely these challenges: using existing servicing and spend data to forecast lifecycle risk, prioritise investment, and rebuild operational control before the next emergency occurs.
The Louvre robbery is not only a cultural loss, it is a facilities lesson written in real time. When preventive maintenance loses priority, operational vigilance follows.
Read more about our approach to data-led maintenance forecasting at toluconsulting.co.uk.
