"Place evaluation has received criticism for being atheoretical and noncumu-lative (Center, 1983; Donald, 1985). In an attempt to over come this Cen-ter (1983) proposed a "Purposive Model of Place Evaluation" using the fa-cet approach to research. The facet model represents a general template forthe specification of the consituents place evaluation. The specific content ofthe model in relation to the environment under consideration is then de-veloped.In the present study three facets of office evaluation are proposed. The firstfacet deals with the scale of the environment being evaluated, and includesthe elements of office building, office, and work space. A second facet speci-fies the environmental referent which includes the element of spatial, ser-vice, and socio-spatial aspects of the office. Finnaly, the third fact specifiesthe organizational unit which represents the level of the goals people havewithin an organization in relation to the office environment. This consists oforganizational, group, and individual goals. A forty-one item questionnaire was developed from the facets. Responses toeach question were given using a 5-point Ukert type scale from "Hinders agreat deal" to "Helps a great deal" their goals. The questionnaire was dis-tributed randomly throughout four different office buildings. A total usablesample of 215 participants was achieved.The data were analyzed using the non-metric multidimensional scaling pro-cedure of SSAI. The analysis procedure provides a spatial representation ofthe assocations between the questionnarie items, and is used to test the va-lidity of the facets and their elements, as well as to reveal the empirical re-tionships between them.The results provides general support for each of the facets. However, nodistinciton was evident between the workspace and the office as a whole.Distinctions were evident of the elements of the referent facet also. The or-ganizational unit facet appeared to be a sub-set of the referent facet.A second analysis was made of the questions concerned with the socio-spatialreferent only. The results of this analysis showevd all environmental scalesto be differentiated. Additionally, support was found for a distinction be-tween individual, group, and organizational perspectives or purposes in theevaluation. Finally, it appeared that envrionmental factors related to cohe-sion in the organization were central to the evaluations, with communicationbeing peripheral.In addition to the results supporting the general model of evaluation pro-posed by Canter (1983), they provide a specific model of office evaluation.One of the central findings of the study is that people hold different perspec-tives for the evaluation of the office envrionment. Each perspective relatesto a particular set of goals. From organizational psychology it would be pre-dicted that there would be a conflict between individual and organizaitonal-perspectives. The present study clearly revealed this not to be the case."