Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are subject to various claims and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of business. The litigation process is inherently uncertain. Therefore, the outcome of such matters is not predictable. As previously reported, we are engaged in legal proceedings in Germany in connection with our acquisition of a controlling interest in Novasoft AG (now known as Ciber AG) in 2004. In August 2006, we completed a buy-out of the remaining minority shareholders of Novasoft. Certain of those former minority shareholders challenged the adequacy of the buy-out consideration by initiating a review by the district court in Mannheim, Germany. The court made a determination in 2013 which is now under appeal by the plaintiffs. Based on information known to us, we have established a reserve that we believe is reasonable. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. As previously reported, a lawsuit titled CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics, et al., was filed initially in October 2009 in Louisiana state court against numerous defendants, including Ciber. The lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court in the Middle District of Louisiana and the complaint was amended to include additional defendants and causes of action including antitrust claims, civil RICO claims, unfair trade practices, trade secret, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy claims. The suit involves many of the same parties involved in related litigation in the state court in New Orleans, which was concluded in 2009 when Ciber settled the New Orleans suit with the plaintiffs, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, who were CamSoft's former alleged joint venturers and are now co-defendants in the current lawsuit. Ciber is vigorously defending the allegations. The matter is ongoing in the appellate courts where Camsoft has filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals while Ciber and the other defendants have filed notices of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and with the Federal Court of Appeals. Based on information known to us, we have established a reserve that we believe is reasonable. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation. As previously reported, in October 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Ciber and several of its current and former officers. In November 2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead plaintiff and the defendants that involved funds paid by our insurers being placed into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. We have not made any admission of liability or wrongdoing by entering into this settlement. The Court issued final approval of the settlement in April 2014, dismissing the claims of the class with prejudice, and terminating the litigation. As previously reported, in February 2012, a purported verified shareholder derivative lawsuit, Seni v. Peterschmidt. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against several of our current and former officers and our then-current board of directors. This complaint generally alleged that the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, due care, reasonable inquiry, oversight, and supervision by approving the issuance of allegedly false statements that misrepresented material information about the finances and operations of the Company. On March 22, 2013, the Court dismissed this complaint with leave to amend. On April 26, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that largely made the same claims as the original complaint. In February 2014, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2014. We believe this derivative lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We are, however, unable to predict the outcome of this litigation. In March 2012, a shareholder, Valerie Denny, made a litigation demand on the Board to investigate certain allegations and bring suit against the directors and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. In response, the Board formed an Independent Committee to investigate the claims. In December 2012, after the Independent Committee completed its investigation, it reported its findings to the board of directors. Based upon the Independent Committee’s findings that Denny’s claims were without merit, the Board formally refused the demand. In February 2014, Denny filed a purported verified shareholder derivative lawsuit, Denny v. Peterschmidt, et al., in Colorado State court, Arapahoe County, against certain current and former officers and directors. This complaint generally made the same allegations as set out in Denny’s March 2012 demand. The Complaint alleged that between December 15, 2010, and August 3, 2011, the defendants committed breaches of fiduciary duty that caused losses to Ciber's reputation and goodwill. The defendants were alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating inaccurate and incomplete information about Ciber's financial results and business prospects, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the Company. Denny also made claims of unjust enrichment and insider trading. In March 2014, Defendants filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of the federal derivative action (Seni v. Peterschmidt), as well as motions to dismiss the action, and an answer to the complaint. In response to those motions, Denny agreed to stay the case. The court therefore issued an order staying the action on March 24, 2014. We believe this derivative lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We are, however, unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.

Contingencies

We are subject to various claims and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of business. The litigation process is inherently uncertain. Therefore, the outcome of such matters is not predictable.

As previously reported, we are engaged in legal proceedings in Germany in connection with our acquisition of a controlling interest in Novasoft AG (now known as Ciber AG) in 2004. In August 2006, we completed a buy-out of the remaining minority shareholders of Novasoft. Certain of those former minority shareholders challenged the adequacy of the buy-out consideration by initiating a review by the district court in Mannheim, Germany. The court made a determination in 2013 which is now under appeal by the plaintiffs. Based on information known to us, we have established a reserve that we believe is reasonable. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

As previously reported, a lawsuit titled CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics, et al., was filed initially in October 2009 in Louisiana state court against numerous defendants, including Ciber. The lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court in the Middle District of Louisiana and the complaint was amended to include additional defendants and causes of action including antitrust claims, civil RICO claims, unfair trade practices, trade secret, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy claims. The suit involves many of the same parties involved in related litigation in the state court in New Orleans, which was concluded in 2009 when Ciber settled the New Orleans suit with the plaintiffs, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, who were CamSoft's former alleged joint venturers and are now co-defendants in the current lawsuit. Ciber is vigorously defending the allegations. The matter is ongoing in the appellate courts where Camsoft has filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals while Ciber and the other defendants have filed notices of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and with the Federal Court of Appeals. Based on information known to us, we have established a reserve that we believe is reasonable. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.

As previously reported, in October 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Ciber and several of its current and former officers. In November 2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead plaintiff and the defendants that involved funds paid by our insurers being placed into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. We have not made any admission of liability or wrongdoing by entering into this settlement. The Court issued final approval of the settlement in April 2014, dismissing the claims of the class with prejudice, and terminating the litigation.

As previously reported, in February 2012, a purported verified shareholder derivative lawsuit, Seni v. Peterschmidt. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against several of our current and former officers and our then-current board of directors. This complaint generally alleged that the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, due care, reasonable inquiry, oversight, and supervision by approving the issuance of allegedly false statements that misrepresented material information about the finances and operations of the Company. On March 22, 2013, the Court dismissed this complaint with leave to amend. On April 26, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that largely made the same claims as the original complaint. In February 2014, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2014. We believe this derivative lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We are, however, unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.

In March 2012, a shareholder, Valerie Denny, made a litigation demand on the Board to investigate certain allegations and bring suit against the directors and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. In response, the Board formed an Independent Committee to investigate the claims. In December 2012, after the Independent Committee completed its investigation, it reported its findings to the board of directors. Based upon the Independent Committee’s findings that Denny’s claims were without merit, the Board formally refused the demand. In February 2014, Denny filed a purported verified shareholder derivative lawsuit, Denny v. Peterschmidt, et al., in Colorado State court, Arapahoe County, against certain current and former officers and directors. This complaint generally made the same allegations as set out in Denny’s March 2012 demand. The Complaint alleged that between December 15, 2010, and August 3, 2011, the defendants committed breaches of fiduciary duty that caused losses to Ciber's reputation and goodwill. The defendants were alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating inaccurate and incomplete information about Ciber's financial results and business prospects, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the Company. Denny also made claims of unjust enrichment and insider trading. In March 2014, Defendants filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of the federal derivative action (Seni v. Peterschmidt), as well as motions to dismiss the action, and an answer to the complaint. In response to those motions, Denny agreed to stay the case. The court therefore issued an order staying the action on March 24, 2014. We believe this derivative lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We are, however, unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.