This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I worked for Royce in Austin. Lockheed did not actually open the branch in Austin until sometime in 1982. I'm not sure whether LSTC got started in Sunnyvale or in Austin, but Royce was definitely not in Austin during the 70s. So I will change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A textual search of DOD-STD-2167 (linked here) turns up no uses of the term "Waterfall". Likewise with DOD-STD-2167A. The statement at the end of the introduction appears to be in error. Kmote (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kmote, I can confirm that both DOD-STD-2167 and DOD-STD-2167A doesn't seem to contain the term. Further on, the first standard is issued 04 June 1985. Four years earlier Barry W. Boehm in his 1981 Software Engineering Economics on p. 35 states:
We begin by presenting the "waterfall" model of software development used as the basis of the software product program engineering goal sequence in the previous chapter (Fig. 3-5), along with an economic rationale for the sequencing of the sequence in the previous chapter.
Now Google books only showed some fragments of text and no image, but this does look like an earlier source. -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
To quote Royce as saying that the Waterfall method is "risky and invites failure" is somewhat misleading. Those words were, in fact, a quote from his article, but they refer to an over-simplified version of the methodology. It is true that Royce's subsequent refinements to the model were slightly more iterative in nature, but they did not eliminate the basic multi-step, water-flow nature of the method. And the citation used to support this statement (Winston W. Royce at interaction-design.org) is questionable: it refers to a post that references a blog -- not exactly primary source material. Kmote (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for noticing. That particular text is added recently, see here. Feel free to remove or change the text, or move the text to the reference section. -- Mdd (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile I expanding the article, and added some more context to that particular quote. I hope this satisfies your concern. -- Mdd (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)