Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation The accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Ciber, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (together, “Ciber,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”) and have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information. Consistent with these requirements, this Form 10-Q does not include all the information required by GAAP for complete financial statements. As a result, this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying Notes in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. Management believes the accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all adjustments, including normal recurring items and restructuring and other items, considered necessary for a fair statement of results for the interim periods presented. The results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the full fiscal year. As fully explained in Note 5, due to the balance available for borrowing under our Asset Based Lending Facility (“ABL Facility”) falling below $15 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we became subject to certain covenants including a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio. We were not in compliance with the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio covenant during the first quarter 2016 and subsequently. The amount due under the ABL Facility is classified as a current liability in our balance sheet at September 30, 2016 as a result of this non-compliance, due to the fact that our lender has the right to accelerate the indebtedness making it due and payable immediately. Additionally, the maturity date of the ABL Facility is May 7, 2017, therefore requiring classification as a current liability. Our lender has not requested full payment of the facility, but if such action occurred, the Company believes it may not be able to immediately pay the amount due upon request. Further, due to the default, the Company’s ability to draw additional amounts from the ABL Facility have been limited. Management obtained a covenant waiver and amendment, and a further amendment, each subsequent to September 30, 2016 and continues to actively engage with Wells Fargo Bank NA ("Wells Fargo"). Management evaluated its working capital, cash flows, operating, investing and transactional forecasts and currently believes, based on this evaluation, the Company can continue to operate for the foreseeable future, although this cannot be assured. Additionally, the Company has announced that its Board of Directors has engaged a strategic adviser to assist in exploring strategic alternatives for the Company, which could include a potential financing, refinancing, or a merger, acquisition, joint venture, divestiture, or other disposition of some or all of the assets of the Company outside of the ordinary course of Ciber’s business. No decision has been made as to whether the Company will engage in a transaction resulting from the consideration of strategic alternatives and there can be no assurance that any transaction will occur or, if undertaken, the terms or timing of such a transaction. While management intends to execute upon the aforementioned plans, which would result in additional funds being raised and extension of the debt maturity, in the absence of such transactions management currently forecasts that it will not be able to timely satisfy its obligations on May 7, 2017, the currently scheduled maturity date of the debt. The financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company is a going concern. Recent Accounting Pronouncements In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)” (“ASU 2014-09”). The core principle of the standard is when an entity transfers goods or services to customers, it will recognize revenue in an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to be entitled to for those goods or services. The update outlines a five-step model and related application guidance, which replaces most existing revenue recognition guidance. In March, April, and May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations" ("ASU 2016-08"), ASU No. 2016-10 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing" ("ASU 2016-10"), and ASU No. 2016-12 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients" ("ASU 2016-12"), respectively, which provide further revenue recognition guidance related to principal versus agent considerations, performance obligations and licensing, and narrow-scope improvements and practical expedients. All of these standards will be effective for us in the first quarter of our fiscal year 2018, although early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of these new standards on our consolidated financial statements, as well as which transition method we intend to use. ASU 2014-09 is expected to be effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and for interim periods within that year, and allows for both retrospective and prospective methods of adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact of implementing this guidance on our consolidated financial statements, as well as which transition method we intend to use. In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, “Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern” (“ASU 2014-15”), which requires management to evaluate, at each annual and interim reporting period, whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements are issued and provide related disclosures. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual and interim periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We do not anticipate that this guidance will materially impact our consolidated financial statements, other than the required disclosures. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)" ("ASU 2016-02") which is intended to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing all lease transactions with terms in excess of 12 months on the balance sheet as a lease liability and a right-of-use asset. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years, with earlier application permitted. This standard is to be applied with a modified retrospective approach at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. We are currently evaluating the impact of implementing this guidance on our consolidated financial statements. In August 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) 2016-15, "Statement of Cash Flows- Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments". This standard clarifies existing guidance related to accounting for cash receipts and cash payments and classification on the statement of cash flows. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We do not anticipate that this guidance will materially impact our consolidated financial statements. Adopted Accounting Pronouncements In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-4)” which is meant to help entities evaluate the accounting for fees paid by a customer in a cloud computing arrangement by providing guidance as to whether an arrangement includes the sale or license of software. This update is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and we have elected to adopt the guidance prospectively. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, "Compensation-Stock Compensation- Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting" ("ASU 2016-09"), which involves accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements. Stock and Other Compensation On January 26, 2015, June 24, 2015, July 1, 2015 and August 10, 2015, we granted 79,761, 69,558, 47,550 and 5,000 Performance Based Restricted Share Units ("PRSUs"), respectively, to our executives. On January 1, 2016, we granted 201,868 PRSUs to our executives. The performance conditions include both an internal performance condition and an external market-based condition. We have valued the external market-based condition using a Monte Carlo approach. Probability of reaching the internal performance condition is assessed quarterly and the associated expense is adjusted based on the target expected to be achieved. There is the potential for 441,072 shares of common stock to vest under these grants if maximum performance targets are achieved. There were no shares that vested and 104,692 shares forfeited during 2016. In connection with the payment of cash bonuses to certain of the Company’s employees, on June 29, 2016, the Company erroneously initiated the payment of $760,000 and $100,000, respectively, to our Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Michael Boustridge, and to our Chief Financial Officer, Christian Mezger. The Compensation Committee subsequently determined that these bonus payments to our our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were not duly authorized by the Compensation Committee, as required by its charter and NYSE rules, due to miscommunication at the committee level. The Compensation Committee requested that these amounts be repaid, net of tax. Mr. Mezger repaid the amount prior to September 30, 2016 and Mr. Boustridge repaid the amount subsequent to the end of the third quarter. The Compensation and Audit Committees have taken steps to strengthen the processes which led to the miscommunication, including the expansion and size of the Compensation Committee and the engagement of an outside third party to review the processes and recommend steps to remediate, and the Company is implementing the recommended changes. Fair Value Authoritative guidance defines fair value as the exit price, or the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants as of the measurement date. Authoritative guidance also establishes a fair value hierarchy that is intended to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures. The fair value hierarchy is based on inputs to valuation techniques that are used to measure fair value that are either observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability based on market data obtained from independent sources while unobservable inputs reflect a reporting entity's pricing based upon its own market assumptions. The fair value hierarchy consists of the following three levels: •Level 1 – Inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. •Level 2 – Inputs are quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable and market-corroborated inputs which are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. •Level 3 – Inputs are derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or value drivers are unobservable. The Company estimates the fair value of each foreign exchange forward contract by using a present value of expected cash flows model. This model calculates the difference between the current market forward price and the contracted forward price for each foreign exchange contract and applies the difference in the rates to each outstanding contract. Valuations for all derivatives fall within Level 2 of the GAAP valuation hierarchy. Derivatives may give rise to credit risks from the possible non-performance by counterparties. Credit risk is generally limited to the fair value of those contracts that are favorable to us. The Company has limited its credit risk by entering into derivative transactions only with highly-rated global financial institutions, limiting the amount of credit exposure with any one financial institution and conducting ongoing evaluation of the creditworthiness of the financial institutions with which the Company does business. The carrying value of the outstanding borrowings under the Company's ABL Facility, as defined in Note 5, approximates its fair value as (1) it is based on a variable rate that changes based on market conditions and (2) the margin applied to the variable rate is based on Ciber's credit risk, which has not changed since entering into the facility in May 2012. If Ciber's credit risk were to change, we would estimate the fair value of our borrowings using a discounted cash flow analysis based on current rates expected to be available from the lender for similar types of debt. The inputs used to establish the fair value of the ABL Facility are considered to be Level 2 of the GAAP Valuation hierarchy.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Ciber, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (together, “Ciber,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”) and have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information. Consistent with these requirements, this Form 10-Q does not include all the information required by GAAP for complete financial statements. As a result, this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying Notes in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Management believes the accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all adjustments, including normal recurring items and restructuring and other items, considered necessary for a fair statement of results for the interim periods presented. The results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the full fiscal year.

As fully explained in Note 5, due to the balance available for borrowing under our Asset Based Lending Facility (“ABL Facility”) falling below $15 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we became subject to certain covenants including a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio. We were not in compliance with the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio covenant during the first quarter 2016 and subsequently. The amount due under the ABL Facility is classified as a current liability in our balance sheet at September 30, 2016 as a result of this non-compliance, due to the fact that our lender has the right to accelerate the indebtedness making it due and payable immediately. Additionally, the maturity date of the ABL Facility is May 7, 2017, therefore requiring classification as a current liability. Our lender has not requested full payment of the facility, but if such action occurred, the Company believes it may not be able to immediately pay the amount due upon request. Further, due to the default, the Company’s ability to draw additional amounts from the ABL Facility have been limited. Management obtained a covenant waiver and amendment, and a further amendment, each subsequent to September 30, 2016 and continues to actively engage with Wells Fargo Bank NA ("Wells Fargo"). Management evaluated its working capital, cash flows, operating, investing and transactional forecasts and currently believes, based on this evaluation, the Company can continue to operate for the foreseeable future, although this cannot be assured. Additionally, the Company has announced that its Board of Directors has engaged a strategic adviser to assist in exploring strategic alternatives for the Company, which could include a potential financing, refinancing, or a merger, acquisition, joint venture, divestiture, or other disposition of some or all of the assets of the Company outside of the ordinary course of Ciber’s business. No decision has been made as to whether the Company will engage in a transaction resulting from the consideration of strategic alternatives and there can be no assurance that any transaction will occur or, if undertaken, the terms or timing of such a transaction. While management intends to execute upon the aforementioned plans, which would result in additional funds being raised and extension of the debt maturity, in the absence of such transactions management currently forecasts that it will not be able to timely satisfy its obligations on May 7, 2017, the currently scheduled maturity date of the debt. The financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company is a going concern.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)” (“ASU 2014-09”). The core principle of the standard is when an entity transfers goods or services to customers, it will recognize revenue in an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to be entitled to for those goods or services. The update outlines a five-step model and related application guidance, which replaces most existing revenue recognition guidance. In March, April, and May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations" ("ASU 2016-08"), ASU No. 2016-10 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing" ("ASU 2016-10"), and ASU No. 2016-12 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients" ("ASU 2016-12"), respectively, which provide further revenue recognition guidance related to principal versus agent considerations, performance obligations and licensing, and narrow-scope improvements and practical expedients. All of these standards will be effective for us in the first quarter of our fiscal year 2018, although early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of these new standards on our consolidated financial statements, as well as which transition method we intend to use. ASU 2014-09 is expected to be effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and for interim periods within that year, and allows for both retrospective and prospective methods of adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact of implementing this guidance on our consolidated financial statements, as well as which transition method we intend to use.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, “Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern” (“ASU 2014-15”), which requires management to evaluate, at each annual and interim reporting period, whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements are issued and provide related disclosures. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual and interim periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We do not anticipate that this guidance will materially impact our consolidated financial statements, other than the required disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)" ("ASU 2016-02") which is intended to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing all lease transactions with terms in excess of 12 months on the balance sheet as a lease liability and a right-of-use asset. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years, with earlier application permitted. This standard is to be applied with a modified retrospective approach at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. We are currently evaluating the impact of implementing this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) 2016-15, "Statement of Cash Flows- Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments". This standard clarifies existing guidance related to accounting for cash receipts and cash payments and classification on the statement of cash flows. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We do not anticipate that this guidance will materially impact our consolidated financial statements.

Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-4)” which is meant to help entities evaluate the accounting for fees paid by a customer in a cloud computing arrangement by providing guidance as to whether an arrangement includes the sale or license of software. This update is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and we have elected to adopt the guidance prospectively. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, "Compensation-Stock Compensation- Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting" ("ASU 2016-09"), which involves accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Stock and Other Compensation

On January 26, 2015, June 24, 2015, July 1, 2015 and August 10, 2015, we granted 79,761, 69,558, 47,550 and 5,000 Performance Based Restricted Share Units ("PRSUs"), respectively, to our executives. On January 1, 2016, we granted 201,868 PRSUs to our executives. The performance conditions include both an internal performance condition and an external market-based condition. We have valued the external market-based condition using a Monte Carlo approach. Probability of reaching the internal performance condition is assessed quarterly and the associated expense is adjusted based on the target expected to be achieved. There is the potential for 441,072 shares of common stock to vest under these grants if maximum performance targets are achieved. There were no shares that vested and 104,692 shares forfeited during 2016.

In connection with the payment of cash bonuses to certain of the Company’s employees, on June 29, 2016, the Company erroneously initiated the payment of $760,000 and $100,000, respectively, to our Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Michael Boustridge, and to our Chief Financial Officer, Christian Mezger. The Compensation Committee subsequently determined that these bonus payments to our our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were not duly authorized by the Compensation Committee, as required by its charter and NYSE rules, due to miscommunication at the committee level. The Compensation Committee requested that these amounts be repaid, net of tax. Mr. Mezger repaid the amount prior to September 30, 2016 and Mr. Boustridge repaid the amount subsequent to the end of the third quarter. The Compensation and Audit Committees have taken steps to strengthen the processes which led to the miscommunication, including the expansion and size of the Compensation Committee and the engagement of an outside third party to review the processes and recommend steps to remediate, and the Company is implementing the recommended changes.

Fair Value

Authoritative guidance defines fair value as the exit price, or the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants as of the measurement date. Authoritative guidance also establishes a fair value hierarchy that is intended to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures. The fair value hierarchy is based on inputs to valuation techniques that are used to measure fair value that are either observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability based on market data obtained from independent sources while unobservable inputs reflect a reporting entity's pricing based upon its own market assumptions.

The fair value hierarchy consists of the following three levels:

•Level 1 – Inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

•Level 2 – Inputs are quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in an active market, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable and market-corroborated inputs which are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data.

•Level 3 – Inputs are derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or value drivers are unobservable.

The Company estimates the fair value of each foreign exchange forward contract by using a present value of expected cash flows model. This model calculates the difference between the current market forward price and the contracted forward price for each foreign exchange contract and applies the difference in the rates to each outstanding contract. Valuations for all derivatives fall within Level 2 of the GAAP valuation hierarchy.

Derivatives may give rise to credit risks from the possible non-performance by counterparties. Credit risk is generally limited to the fair value of those contracts that are favorable to us. The Company has limited its credit risk by entering into derivative transactions only with highly-rated global financial institutions, limiting the amount of credit exposure with any one financial institution and conducting ongoing evaluation of the creditworthiness of the financial institutions with which the Company does business.

The carrying value of the outstanding borrowings under the Company's ABL Facility, as defined in Note 5, approximates its fair value as (1) it is based on a variable rate that changes based on market conditions and (2) the margin applied to the variable rate is based on Ciber's credit risk, which has not changed since entering into the facility in May 2012. If Ciber's credit risk were to change, we would estimate the fair value of our borrowings using a discounted cash flow analysis based on current rates expected to be available from the lender for similar types of debt. The inputs used to establish the fair value of the ABL Facility are considered to be Level 2 of the GAAP Valuation hierarchy.