In real life, an industrial revolution - with steam engines and all their associated paraphernalia - could never be started by a single man. It's not for want of brilliance, but rather because of simple economics. The first steam engines were, frankly, pathetic and were only commissioned because it was cheaper to use them (to pump the water out of coal mines, feeding them with the low-quality coal that wasn't suitable for transportation and sale) than to pay for draft horses. So it was with all pre-efficient-steam-engine-mechanisation; if labour costs rose past a certain level, people invested in labour-saving tools. If labour costs fell below that level, as their tools wore out they simply hired more people and/or draft animals. There had been many cycles of mechanisation and de-mechanisation before the nineteenth century, but the efficient steam engine was a real game-breaker that had very specific origins - decent-quality coal being mined below the water table in large amounts for sale to towns and cities at the heart of a good-sized and well-developed (i.e. linked up by loads of navigable rivers and canals) regional market wherein it was relatively easy to get loans (from banks) and labour costs were rising.
Even if such a person was to, say, forcefully enact an industrial revolution it would not get far due to a lack of widespread literacy, educated technicians (who will maintain those steam engines?), an efficient and reasonably wealthy banking system and a myriad of other factors. This is assuming that the one-person-industrial-revolution knows how all of this stuff is supposed to work - the machinery, the institutions, and the economic system - in the first place, anyhow.
