Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES At December 31, 2011, the Company had purchase commitments due within one year totaling $3,091 for materials through contract manufacturing agreements at negotiated prices. The amounts purchased under these obligations totaled $5,997 in 2011. At December 31, 2011, the Company was a party to several lawsuits that were incurred in the normal course of business, none of which individually or in the aggregate is considered material by management in relation to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In management’s opinion, the Company’s consolidated financial statements would not be materially affected by the outcome of those legal proceedings, commitments, or asserted claims. In addition to the routine legal proceedings noted above the Company was a party to the lawsuits described below at December 31, 2011: Securities and Shareholder Actions On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and the Company’s independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s stock between June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement). On October 19, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Stark County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, alleging claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste (Levine v. Geswein et al., Case No. 2010-CV-3848). The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010 in connection with the SEC Settlement, and asserts that the defendants are liable to the Company for alleged damages associated with the SEC investigation, settlement, and related litigation. It also asserts that alleged misstatements in the Company’s publicly issued financial statements caused the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices between 2004 and 2006, and that defendants harmed the Company by causing it to repurchase its common stock in the open market at inflated prices during that period. The complaint seeks an award of money damages against the defendants and in favor of the Company in an unspecified amount, as well as unspecified equitable and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Management believes any possible loss or range of loss associated with the putative federal securities class action cannot be estimated. The parties to the shareholder derivative lawsuit have agreed to a settlement of that action. The settlement, which requires court approval before it will become effective, is not anticipated to have a material impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Labor and Wage Actions On May 7, 2010, a purported collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that field service employees of the Company nationwide were not paid for the time spent logging into the Company’s computer network in the morning, for travel to their first jobs and for meal periods that were supposedly automatically deducted from the employees’ pay but, allegedly, not taken (Nichols v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. 3:10cv150/RV/MD). The lawsuit sought unpaid overtime, liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid overtime and attorneys' fees. In December 2010, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, which resulted in a tentative settlement in the amount of $9,500 subject to agreement on final settlement terms and court approval. This tentative settlement was recorded in selling and administrative expense in the fourth quarter of 2010. In July 2011, the parties agreed upon the final terms of the settlement. The case was then refiled so that court approval of the settlement could be sought, and on November 10, 2011, court approval was obtained. Global Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Review During the second quarter of 2010, while conducting due diligence in connection with a potential acquisition in Russia, the Company identified certain transactions and payments by its subsidiary in Russia (primarily during 2005 to 2008) that potentially implicate the FCPA, particularly the books and records provisions of the FCPA. As a result, the Company conducted a global internal review and collected information related to its global FCPA compliance. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company identified certain transactions within its Asia Pacific operation that occurred over the past several years that may also potentially implicate the FCPA. The Company continues to monitor its ongoing compliance with the FCPA. The Company has voluntarily self-reported its findings to the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and is cooperating with these agencies in their review. The Company was previously informed that the SEC's inquiry had been converted to a formal, non-public investigation. The Company also received a subpoena for documents from the SEC and a voluntary request for documents from the DOJ in connection with the investigation. As of December 31, 2011, the Company accrued an estimated loss related to the potential outcome of this matter within miscellaneous, net expense which is not considered material to the consolidated financial statements. Because the SEC and DOJ investigations are ongoing, there can be no assurance that their review will not find evidence of additional transactions that potentially implicate the FCPA. At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of the government investigations and future resolution of these matters with the SEC and the DOJ could result in changes in management's estimates of losses, which could be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Furthermore, the Company cannot estimate the amount of any potential incremental losses or range of loss.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

At December 31, 2011, the Company had purchase commitments due within one year totaling $3,091 for materials through contract manufacturing agreements at negotiated prices. The amounts purchased under these obligations totaled $5,997 in 2011.

At December 31, 2011, the Company was a party to several lawsuits that were incurred in the normal course of business, none of which individually or in the aggregate is considered material by management in relation to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In management’s opinion, the Company’s consolidated financial statements would not be materially affected by the outcome of those legal proceedings, commitments, or asserted claims.

In addition to the routine legal proceedings noted above the Company was a party to the lawsuits described below at December 31, 2011:

Securities and Shareholder Actions

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and the Company’s independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s stock between June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement).

On October 19, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Stark County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, alleging claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste (Levine v. Geswein et al., Case No. 2010-CV-3848). The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010 in connection with the SEC Settlement, and asserts that the defendants are liable to the Company for alleged damages associated with the SEC investigation, settlement, and related litigation. It also asserts that alleged misstatements in the Company’s publicly issued financial statements caused the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices between 2004 and 2006, and that defendants harmed the Company by causing it to repurchase its common stock in the open market at inflated prices during that period. The complaint seeks an award of money damages against the defendants and in favor of the Company in an unspecified amount, as well as unspecified equitable and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Management believes any possible loss or range of loss associated with the putative federal securities class action cannot be estimated. The parties to the shareholder derivative lawsuit have agreed to a settlement of that action. The settlement, which requires court approval before it will become effective, is not anticipated to have a material impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Labor and Wage Actions

On May 7, 2010, a purported collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that field service employees of the Company nationwide were not paid for the time spent logging into the Company’s computer network in the morning, for travel to their first jobs and for meal periods that were supposedly automatically deducted from the employees’ pay but, allegedly, not taken (Nichols v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. 3:10cv150/RV/MD). The lawsuit sought unpaid overtime, liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid overtime and attorneys' fees. In December 2010, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, which resulted in a tentative settlement in the amount of $9,500 subject to agreement on final settlement terms and court approval. This tentative settlement was recorded in selling and administrative expense in the fourth quarter of 2010. In July 2011, the parties agreed upon the final terms of the settlement. The case was then refiled so that court approval of the settlement could be sought, and on November 10, 2011, court approval was obtained.

Global Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Review

During the second quarter of 2010, while conducting due diligence in connection with a potential acquisition in Russia, the Company identified certain transactions and payments by its subsidiary in Russia (primarily during 2005 to 2008) that potentially implicate the FCPA, particularly the books and records provisions of the FCPA. As a result, the Company conducted a global internal review and collected information related to its global FCPA compliance. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company identified certain transactions within its Asia Pacific operation that occurred over the past several years that may also potentially implicate the FCPA. The Company continues to monitor its ongoing compliance with the FCPA.

The Company has voluntarily self-reported its findings to the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and is cooperating with these agencies in their review. The Company was previously informed that the SEC's inquiry had been converted to a formal, non-public investigation. The Company also received a subpoena for documents from the SEC and a voluntary request for documents from the DOJ in connection with the investigation. As of December 31, 2011, the Company accrued an estimated loss related to the potential outcome of this matter within miscellaneous, net expense which is not considered material to the consolidated financial statements. Because the SEC and DOJ investigations are ongoing, there can be no assurance that their review will not find evidence of additional transactions that potentially implicate the FCPA. At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of the government investigations and future resolution of these matters with the SEC and the DOJ could result in changes in management's estimates of losses, which could be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Furthermore, the Company cannot estimate the amount of any potential incremental losses or range of loss.