These descriptions of problem solving are agreeable, but I would add that:
Problems aren't metaphysical crises (bad things), or even physical crises (e.g. sudden entropy), but small discontinuities or disjunctures between “ideal outcomes” and “processes” used to reach them. In this sense the fact that there is no food in the fridge is not exactly the problem, but that the process enacted to deliver food to the fridge has failed somehow.
Note that small discontinuities are more vexing than large ones. Large discontinuities will soon cease to be noted because the “ideal” that desired them withers and disappears (we don't want what we can't have).
In general problem "solving" consists in removing the discontinuity by altering either or both of the properties “ideal” and “process” that define it.
Emphasizing this, the mind is encouraged to explore both aspects of the problem: "what exactly did not function", and "why am I concerned." In both directions there is a chain/network of causality: beliefs on one side, processes on the other. The locus of the problem may be a set of widely dispersed but related discontinuities. Many problems become non-problems simply by reassessing one's objectives.
