For economic historians, technological transformation and the Industrial Revolution are two titles that tied tighter. Many economic historians have seen technological creativity at the very base of the rise of the West. Technological change has been explained by shortages in labor, the endowment of resources, alteration in the idea of knowledge, culture, secured property rights and etc. 
Mokyr believes that the diffusion of useful knowledge was among the central motives that drove the engine of technological transformation.  What makes the case of Britain unique comparing to other civilizations like China during the Sung dynasty that had had a chance to experience a period of technological progress, according to Mokyr, is that Britain had better institutions and developed better incentives to make the most of useful knowledge, thanks to the Enlightenment. Men of science started to cooperate with men of industry. Scientists were asked to solve everyday problems. Pursuing propositional knowledge is encouraged by universities, research institutes, and professional societies, which consequently makes the wave of "micro-inventions."
Reading the book, keep in mind that Mokyr's Idea of the Industrial Enlightenment has been subjected to a number of criticisms. One of the most famous objections of his work has been raised by Allen (2009). In the tenth chapter of his book, Allen, "The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective," brings together a database of seventy-nine important inventors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including all of the macro-inventors who made the key technological breakthroughs. He aims to explore whether macro inventors had been involved with Enlightenment science through education or any other social interaction. "The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective" is a very reach and useful read in this respect.
Clark (2012) is also very critical of the effect of the Enlightenment on the Industrial revolution. He believes that since there is no quantitative evaluation of the Industrial Enlightenment hypothesis, it is hard to demonstrate any causal role of Enlightenment. Clark (2012) notes that "the Cliometric society, _which Mokyr himself, has been a member of it _in economics aimed to work towards a testable scientific history"(That could be a starting point for me to talk for at least an hour about the history of science in economics, so let's skip that. )
Debate continues about the role of Industrial Enlightenment in generating the Industrial Revolution, which comes as no surprise in the historiography of the Industrial Revolution. Technological change was only one of the many phenomena that affected the British economy during the long course of the eighteenth century. The origin of the Industrial Revolution has been a controversial and much-disputed subject within many fields. Although economic historians tend to highlight economic slants, as Mokyr mentions, "the Industrial Revolution illuminates the limitations of the compartmentalization of historical sciences."
Anyway, this was a useful read.