Both lead to enhanced value but the later generates more value by preempting costs that tangibly incur in case of the former. The round shaped cup for instance preempts the COPQ (Cost-Of-Poor-Quality) incurred by the square-cup design (as in Part-1 of this blogpost).
Look at the picture for self-study at a little higher level of difficulty.
It has five different designs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of a nose-mask. Different designs are expected to serve different functions in different situations. You may like to attempt answering following questions:
1/ Which product-design is designed to serve what function in what situation?
2/ Which product-design can serve what function in what situation as an alternative? Justify how?
3/ In that case, which product-design offers maximum Value? Justify how with likely COPQ?
4/ Which product-design is a case of Value-Engineering and which one of Value-Analysis? Justify how?
5/ What kind of greed-based 'wants' make this product a necessity?
6/ What are the 'needs' in above context? And with what alternatives can we move towards 'needs'?
3/ Unnecessary aesthetic sheen while doing so is a want that does increase unnecessary cost. Enhanced cost does force a compromise on functional quality.
Maketh a Person Mean
Hi-Cost-Lo-Function: The affair routine
Defies the very purpose of Lean
That of making the planet Green
Footnote-2: The recommendation under Five-S's practice in Kaizen.