When people evaluate a building there are an array of purposes and goals which are the criteria for that evaluation. Interestingly, some of the purposes in relation to which people evaluate a place appear to be conflicting. For example, evaluation of an office may be in terms of the extent to which it allows a person to be distinct, cut off, from the rest of the organization or group. On the other hand communication and interaction, the essence of organization, are central to a person's activities in an office. These more positively social purposes are also criteria for assessment. This issue was directly addressed in research to develop a multivariate facet model of workers' office evaluations. Three facets of office evaluation were proposed. The first facet deals with the scale of the environment being evaluated, and includes the elements of office building, office, and work space. A second facet specifies the environmental referent which includes the elements of spatial, service, and socio-spatial aspects of the office. Finally, the third facet specifies the organizational unit which represents the level of the goals people have within an organization in relation to the office environment. It is the third facet that allows the above issues to be addressed, and includes the elements of organizational, group, and individual goals. A forty-one item questionnaire was developed from the facets, and distributed randomly throughout four different office buildings. A total usable sample of 215 participants was achieved. The data were analyzed using the non-metric multidimensional scaling procedure of SSA-1. The analysis procedure provides a spatial representation of the associations between the questionnaire items, and is used to test the validity of the facets and their elements, as well as to reveal the empirical relationships between them. In terms of a model of office evaluation, the results provide general support for each of the facets and their elements. Additionally the results suggest that environmental factors related to cohesion in the organization were central to the evaluations, with communication being peripheral. In relation to the issue of conflicting purposes, one of the central findings of the study is that people hold different perspectives for the evaluation of the office environment. Each perspective relates to a particular set of goals. From organizational psychology it would be predicted that there would be a conflict between individual and organizational perspectives, yet the present study clearly revealed this not to be the case. Within the lAPS 12 context, there remains the intriguing question of whether metamorphosis (a change in form or state that resuts in a different entity to that which began) occurs when making evaluations for different purposes, or whether, rather than change from one being to another, people are simultaneously many things with many perspectives.