Abstract
<jats:p>The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) into construction companies depends less on software acquisition than on the formation of competent, well-structured teams capable of sustaining collaborative digital workflows across the project lifecycle. The objective of this study was to analyze the roles, competencies, organizational barriers, and emerging technological demands that shape the formation of efficient BIM teams. A qualitative documentary approach, structured as a scoping review inspired by the PRISMA-ScR protocol, was adopted, drawing on 15 sources indexed in Scopus, ScienceDirect, and related academic databases, selected for their direct relevance, methodological rigor, and recency. The findings show that BIM role nomenclature remains highly fragmented, with as many as 35 distinct role titles identified across 36 international guides and standards, while competency frameworks converge on a three-tier structure distinguishing core, domain, and execution competencies. Organizational adoption is shaped by an interacting set of technical, financial, organizational, and human barriers, particularly acute in small and medium-sized enterprises, and is substantially supported by Common Data Environments, whose practical implementation nonetheless remains challenged by tool multiplicity and governance gaps. Industry data indicate that poor communication and inaccessible project information account for up to 52% of rework globally, underscoring the centrality of coordinated team structures. The accelerating integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning into BIM workflows is reshaping the competency profile expected of BIM teams, while structured training models remain unevenly available, especially for site-level operatives. It is concluded that efficient BIM team formation requires the simultaneous alignment of role clarity, competency development, collaborative information infrastructure, and organizational culture, with direct implications for construction management practice and for curricular design in architecture and engineering education.</jats:p>